Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Kent (Sevenoaks Division), in the room of the right hon. Sir Edward Hilton Young, G.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C., (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords],

Camborne Water Bill [Lords],

Poole Road Transport Bill [Lords],

St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords],

Weymouth Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

TREATIES (REVISION).

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the attitude towards the revision of treaties indicated in point four of Herr Hitler's speech of 21st May, he will consider the advisability of proposing the setting up of a tribunal in equity or some alternative machinery for giving effect to Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations?

The MINISTER for LEAGUE of NATIONS AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by advancing such a proposal.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not becoming quite clear that we have to choose between the whole Covenant and complete chaos? Is it not desirable to make a beginning here?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government stand, of course, by Article 19, as they do by the whole of the Covenant. The suggestion of the hon. Member is wholly inconsistent with Article 19.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will represent to the Italian Government that, in the matter of the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, it is for this country a matter of honour and vital interest not to default on our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the situation which would arise if Italy were to resort to war in disregard of her obligations under the Covenant of the League. Such a situation has not yet arisen, and I earnestly trust will not arise. His Majesty's Government are determined to continue their endeavours in co-operation with the Governments of other countries to bring about a settlement of this dispute by peaceful means.

Mr. MANDER: Am I right in assuming that the attitude of His Majesty's Government is rightly described in my question?

Mr. EDEN: It is safer to assume that it is rightly described ill my answer.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the Government are going to publish the reasons why the Committee which was set up to investigate this matter disagreed?

Mr. EDEN: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question but I do not think it arises out of the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED WESTERN AIR PACT.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that a Western air-pact must be accompanied by a system of mutual inspection or supervision?

Mr. EDEN: As negotiations between the five Locarno Powers regarding an air pact have not yet begun, it would be preferable not to make any statement regarding the form which such a pact might take.

Mr. BEVAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman able to indicate what the Government's attitude will be in the event of a pact being agreed upon? Would not some system of supervision be necessary in view of the secret arming which is admittedly going on, and in view of the fact that recently the Government have admitted complete ignorance of the extent to which European nations have already armed?

Mr. EDEN: It is not a question of the Government being able to indicate its position; it is a question whether it is advisable or not.

Mr. BEVAN: Are we going to be faced, as usual, with an accomplished fact? Cannot we know what the Government's attitude is going to be?

Mr. EDEN: After negotiations have begun.

Mr. MANDER: Have not the Government made it clear that they attach the greatest importance to mutual inspection in any pact of this kind?

Mr. BEVAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that limitation should be an indispensable feature of a Western air pact?

Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the references made to this subject on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debates in this House on 2nd May and 31st May.

Mr. BBEVAN: Are we to understand that every pact which is now arranged with other nations must mean an increase of armaments and never a decrease?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member will look at the reference instead of making assumptions he will find it clearly set out by the Home Secretary that the Government do contemplate limitation as part of an air pact.

Mr. BEVAN: We have to consider, not speeches made in this House, but actual facts and figures.

Mr. EDEN: There is no inconsistency.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT).

Mr. COCKS: 5.
asked the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he
received the French Note making certain representations on the proposed Anglo-German Naval Agreement which was signed on 18th June?

Mr. EDEN: The French Note was communicated to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris on the 17th June. An identical Note was left at the Foreign Office on the 18th June.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why some little time was not given to the consideration of this Note before signing this arrangement with Germany?

Mr. EDEN: We communicated the outline of the Agreement to the French Government.

Mr. COCKS: My point is that there was no time to consider the French Note before you signed the German Note. What was the reason for that?

Mr. EDEN: This matter is to be debated to-morrow.

Mr. COVE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German naval delegation stipulated any time limit for the signature of the naval agreement on 18th June?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR ARMAMENTS.

Mr. COCKS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has given any assurance to the Government of France with regard to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Germany on air armaments?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir; but it is the hope and intention of His Majesty's Government that an agreement on air armaments shall be concluded between the five Locarno Powers.

Mr. COCKS: Can the Minister give an assurance that there is no intention of concluding a bilateral agreement with Germany in the air as has been done on the sea?

Mr. EDEN: That is a different question. The hon. Member asked whether we had given an assurance to France with regard to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Germany on air armaments.

Mr. COCKS: Are the Government contemplating another act of treachery and surrender?

Mr. COCKS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now made any inquiries as to the present strength of the German air force, and whether he has obtained any information on the subject which he can give to the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I can add nothing to the statements to which I referred in my reply of the 3rd July.

Mr. COCKS: But the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. Has he made any inquiries into the matter, and how long are we to remain in the dark as to what is going on in Germany in this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The whole question can be more conveniently dealt with in the Debate which we shall have shortly. We had a perfectly plain statement from the German Government of what their intention and programme are, and it is in relation to that that our programme is conceived and will be carried out.

Mr. COCKS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what that programme is?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope to have an opportunity. The House has already been told—

Mr. COCKS: Three months ago.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, in May. The House has been told by the Prime Minister and by the Under-Secretary of State for Air what the programme is. An Estimate is to be presented early. I hope it will be in the hands of Members very early next week, and then I hope to have an opportunity of debating it. I shall be very glad to give the fullest possible explanation and justification of the programme.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the Estimate be formed on the basis of the assurance received from Germany or on the facts as they are in Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

REPAIR WORKS (NEWPORT).

Mr. CLARRY: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the abnormally high percentage of unemployment in private ship-repair yards, affecting a large variety of trades in Newport and similarly situated ports, he will consider giving special preferences to such ports for regular Admiralty repair work, seeing that it is of national interest that the highly skilled work of ship repairing should be maintained even during difficult times in a state of efficiency at suitable ports throughout the country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Sir Victor Warrender): All repairs to His Majesty's ships are normally carried out in the Royal Dockyards, which are specially equipped and maintained for that purpose, and there can be no question of a general departure from this established peace-time practice. Ship-repairing firms in the Newport Area will be carefully borne in mind, however, should suitable opportunities occur for carrying out repair work within their capacity.

Mr. CLARRY: Can I have an answer to the second part of my question?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I can understand the hon. Member's concern for the welfare of his constituents, and I thought that I had covered that part of the question in the latter part of my reply.

MR. E. C. GREVETT (PENSION).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. E. C. Grevett, of the Sanatorium, Brighton, who has been refused a pension or assistance on the ground that the disability from which he is suffering did not arise during the period of his service in the Royal Navy, in spite of the fact that he is only 23 years of age and must have been perfectly fit when he joined the Navy three or four years ago; and whether some grant can be made to him in view of his present serious condition?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Grevett's case has already been carefully investigated. It is the opinion of the medical authorities that his illness has arisen in the
ordinary course of life and that there are no grounds for regarding it as attributable to the conditions of his naval service. I regret that in these circumstances it is not possible to award him a pension, and I regret also that he is not eligible for any grant from naval funds beyond the small gratuity which he has already received for his short period of service and invaliding.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is there any appeal to any further tribunal?

Sir V. WARRENDER: No, Sir.

ROSYTH.

Sir JOHN WALLACE: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make a statement on the future status of the Rosyth naval base?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Rosyth is a royal dockyard in a condition of care and maintenance. Its future must depend on the situation in Europe. At present no change is contemplated.

Sir J. WALLACE: In view of the state of unemployment in Scotland and the value of Rosyth as a naval base, is not it advisable that the whole question of the position of our naval bases should be reconsidered?

Sir V. WARRENDER: All these matters are constantly under the review of the Admiralty.

Sir J. WALLACE: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question again next week. I want a better reply than that.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that Plymouth and Devonport are far and away more important strategically than any other naval dockyard?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. PARKINSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the setting up of a labour department in Northern Rhodesia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have not received any proposal for the setting up of a labour department from the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, but the matter is receiving my consideration.

Mr. LUNN: Is it not important that a labour department should be set up in Northern Rhodesia—in view of the fact that there are so many engaged in industrial operations, perhaps more important than in most of our Colonies?

Mr. MacDONALD: It would be extremely improper to set it up without consideration, and I have promised to give the matter my consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. LUNN: 15 and 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will call for a return of the number of visits paid by inspectors or Chinese protectorate officers to muit-sai in their employer's homes in the last six months of last year in Singapore and Penang and in each of the federated and unfederated Malay States;
(2) whether he will see that the Malayan Governments follow the example of the Hong-Kong Government and give the number of mui-tsai in those states in each of the half-yearly reports with effect from the beginning of this year; and whether he will see that much fuller information regarding mui-tsai is included in the reports?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am asking the Governor and High Commissioner to furnish full information in his periodical reports, and to supply such a return as may be available of the visits paid to mui-tsai in the last six months of 1934.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking that this information shall appear in all the reports?

Mr. MacDONALD: That depends on what answer I receive.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (AIR FLIGHTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the number of cases of claims by Territorial officers, non-commissioned officers and men for accidents in Royal Air Force flights and the number which have been refused owing to the signing of the certificate of indemnity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No such claims have been made.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give the number of cases of injury to Regular and Territorial personnel which have occurred in flights of Royal Air Force machines for which the certificate has been signed and for which it has not been signed for the latest available period?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Since 1930 there have been six cases of injury, three of them being fatal, to Army personnel while flying in Royal Air Force aircraft. They all occurred overseas and two of the killed were an officer and a native soldier of a Colonial defence force. AR the personnal were on duty and in no case had a certificate of indemnity been signed.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider dispensing with the certificate in the case of serving officers, noncommissioned officers, and men of the Regular and Territorial Army?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Commanding Officer's certificate that the officer or soldier is on duty is dispensed with in joint exercises in which aircraft are co-operating with troops where it is clear that the personnel are required to go into the air on military duty. I do not think it would be practicable to dispense with the certificate in other cases.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has my right hon. Friend taken into consideration the question of the effect of the certificate on recruiting for the Territorial Army and the feeling aroused in the ranks of the Territorial Army by their having to sign a certificate when they are actually on service?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend slightly misunderstands the position, or I have not made it clear. When an officer or man is on duty he receives a certificate from his Commanding Officer that he is on duty and that it is proper for him to be flying, and then of course he is covered. If he is flying quite irrespective of his duty, the Regulations provide that he should sign a certificate of indemnity like any one else.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it to be supposed that aircraft of the Royal Air
Force can go up when they are not on duty? Is it to be supposed that any flights can be joy-riding, where a certificate is not required? Otherwise would it not be the case that all flights would be flights on duty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Air Force airmen flying machines are flying in the course of their duty. The question here is, I understand, about Territorial officers or men flying in Royal Air Force machines. If they are flying on duty, they are completely covered. If they are not flying on duty they have to sign a certificate of indemnity like any one else.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ARTERIAL ROADS (STATIONARY VEHICLES).

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger often caused on decontrolled by-passes and other arterial roads by vehicles standing at both sides of the carriage-way; and whether he will consider the adoption of the system under which vehicles may only stand on one side of such roads?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers which is one of the results of ribbon development; as regards the second part of his question, I am prepared to consider on merits the confirmation of Orders by local authorities to establish unilateral waiting.

ROAD REPAIRS.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the standardisation of notices of road repairs, and if these can be graded according to the amount of the highway not usable on that account?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will readily consider whether some greater uniformity of practice can be secured, including any suggestions my hon. Friend may be good enough to make, although it will be recognised that contractors and statutory undertakers could not in any case be expected to scrap existing stocks without reasonable notice.

BRIDGES, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. CLARRY: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the
necessity of reconstructing a number of suitable bridges in the county of Monmouthshire, and to the difficulty of this county, which is partly scheduled as a distressed area and already too overburdened with rates, of finding even a small proportion of the necessary finance, he will recommend that the total cost of such works be borne by the Exchequer?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of the bridges to which he refers, I shall be prepared to discuss the question of their reconstruction with the County Council on the basis of whatever rates of grant are available for that purpose. I should, however, be unable to recommend that the total cost should be borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. CLARRY: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider the matter if it were on the ground of national expediency and economy that both these bridges should be constructed and should find work for men locally?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand the proposal to be that the highway authority should surrender its autonomy and that we should take over its functions?

Mr. CLARRY: No, I did not make that suggestion.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress has been reported in the consultations between the local authorities and the building of the Severn Bridge; and whether his Department is giving full encouragement to that project?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be willing to give the hon. Member any information in my possession if he will specify the information that he desires.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is there any information in the Department as to the progress made in the consultations between the local authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have said that if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice (if the information that he requires, and it is available, he shall have it.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.

Mr. WEST: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been
drawn to the dismissal of a summons against a motorist for failing to pull up at a pedestrian crossing, and his statement that the pedestrian had time to go, back three yards to the pavement; and what steps he proposes to take to make the law on this subject better known?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have seen a Press report of the case to which I assume the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the question I can only state the law, which as embodied in the regulations is:
4. The driver of every vehicle at or approaching a crossing where traffic is not for the time being controlled by a police constable or by light signals shall allow free and uninterrupted passage to any foot passenger who is on the carriageway at such crossing, and every such foot passenger shall have precedence over all vehicular traffic at such crossing.
This regulation, among others, is reproduced in the new Highway Code, of which a distribution to over 13,000,000 householders will shortly be made. Further copies will be sent to all magistrates.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of recommending to the railway authority concerned the electrification of the railway between Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale, the plans of which were completed by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company several years ago, but for some reason were not proceeded with; and whether he will ascertain the possibilities of Treasury assistance to this scheme?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have brought my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, who inform me that they are examining the whole of their line with a view to deciding what portions are suitable for electrification. As regards the last part of the question, the Government has already intimated its willingness to consider any useful schemes of this kind which may be put before it, but the initiative must necessarily rest with the undertakings concerned.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this scheme is likely to be most remunerative and very beneficial to trade in a densely populated area?

ROAD DRESSING.

Captain STRICKLAND: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of top dressing roads, particularly on bends, with loose stone, grit, or sand; and whether he will take steps to ensure that all such top dressings are properly rolled in, and all excessive loose material, liable to promote dry skidding, swept away?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Within the last week I have issued to the Department's Divisional Road Engineers instructions to impress on highway authorities the importance of the matter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, although he will appreciate the difficulties that arise in the present hot weather.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extraordinary danger that lies in this form of dressing, as exemplified by the fact that I had my own windscreen smashed by a stone, and had there been a motor-cyclist following there would have been a most serious accident?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure the whole House will concur with me in regretting my hon. and gallant Friend's accident. My circular is sufficiently strong on the point. I will show it to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. BURNETT: Will the Minister give instructions that before rolling takes place the dressing shall consist of granite chips?

Lord APSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerably more danger of skidding in wet weather, especially when there has been a shower after a dry spell, where there is no loose dressing?

MOTOR TAXATION.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to allay the dissatisfaction which exists in the country, he will consider setting on foot an inquiry into the whole question of the basis of taxation of motor transport and the allocation of the sums derived therefrom?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): My right hon. Friend is not aware that there is any general dissatisfaction on this subject. So far as goods vehicles are concerned there was a full inquiry as recently as
1932 which also threw light on motor taxation generally. My right hon. Friend sees no need for any further inquiry on the subject.

PROPOSED THORNE BY-PASS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet consulted the West Riding (Yorks) County Council regarding the proposed by-pass road at Thorne; and, if so, will he state the result?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The West Riding County Council have, I understand, included in their five-year programme an estimate for the execution of the Thorne by-pass in 1938–39.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the most pressing problems confronting the highways committee of the West Riding County Council, and will he be good enough to endeavour to find means whereby the highways committee will bring that improvement much nearer than 1938?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to influence his local highway authority. As I have informed him, they put it down for construction in 1938–39, but I shall be quite ready to consider any proposals that they may make.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that originally this improvement, which is generally acknowledged to be necessary, was put down for the first year, but by some mischance it was put back to 1938, and, in these circumstances and in view of the fact that it is an urgent problem, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be only too glad to assist the hon. Gentleman. As I say, if the highway authority desire to advance the date, I shall be only too glad to reconsider it.

ROAD SIGNS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of having a clear broad line painted on every minor crossroad at its junction with a main arterial road, in view of the fact that it is often difficult to tell that the road ahead is an arterial road?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I are about to authorise a new sign for erection on minor roads where they join major roads, requiring drivers to halt immediately before entering the carriageway of a major road, unless they have a clear view of the major road in both directions. This new sign, in conjunction with the "Major Road Ahead" sign already authorised, should effectively meet the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, THORNTON HEATH.

Mr. DORAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the traffic dangers at the junction of Whitehorse Road, Grange Road, and the tramway terminus, High Street, Thornton Heath; and whether he will consult his traffic advisers on the desirability of erecting traffic control signals at this spot?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am already conferring with Croydon Corporation with a view to improvements being effected at the junction referred to by my hon. Friend.

OMNIBUS SERVICES, PURLEY AND LONDON.

Mr. DORAN: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience caused to residents in the Mitcham, West Croydon and Thornton Heath areas, owing to the lack of an omnibus service between Purley and London via Thornton Road; and whether, in view of the growth of population in this area, he will recommend to the London Passenger Transport Board the urgent necessity for inaugurating this service and an omnibus service between the Thornton Heath tramway terminus and Purley via the Brigstock and Thornton Roads?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in communication with the board with respect to my hon. Friend's proposals, and I will inform him of the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MILK SUPPLIES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children that are receiving daily rations of milk in the various schools in the county of Yorkshire, and the number that are being supplied free?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The total number of children in the various schools in the county of Yorkshire who were receiving a daily ration of milk at the end of March last amounted to about 381,000. Of these, about 63,000 were being supplied free. The corresponding figures for public elementary schools only were 358,000 and 58,000.

Mr. WEST: Has the hon. Gentleman come to any conclusion as to the general effect on the schools?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman let the House know what an immense effect this great achievement of the National Government has had?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That is quite another question.

STATISTICS.

Mr. SALT (for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE): 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children attending the elementary schools at the last convenient date, and the approximate number his Department estimates will have to be provided for in 1940?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The returns for 1934–25 are not yet completed, but the number of children on the registers of the public elementary schools during that period was approximately 5,450,000. It is estimated that the corresponding number in 1940–41 will be 4,785,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTED CARTRIDGE CASES (MARKING).

Sir C. RAWSON: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cartridge cases have been imported into this country during the pat 12 months without the country of origin being marked upon them; whether he is aware that a firm of manufacturers of cartridge cases in this country are denied the right to state their case for a marking order under the Merchandise Marks Act because the regulations provide that a majority of manufacturers must apply; and, as there are only two manufacturers in this country, one of whom will not apply, can some modification of the rules be made to protect this British industry against such competition?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the rest of the question, Marking Orders can only be made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, after the various conditions laid down in that Act have been complied with; I am sending my hon. Friend a summary of these conditions. The Board of Trade cannot make a reference to the Committee on the application before them since in their opinion it does not substantially represent the interests of the manufacturers of these goods.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is there any machinery to deal with this "fifty-fifty" question, one half being in favour of applying for an order and the other half against?

Dr. BURGIN: I think, if the hon. Member looks a little further into the question, he will find that it is not a "fifty-fifty" matter, but that one maker is in favour of an order and the rest are against it.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is it not a case of one being in favour and one against?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Should it not be obvious from the printing on the cartridge cases whether they are imported or not, and has the Board of Trade taken any action to deal with cases which are not marked with the country of origin?

Dr. BURGIN: That is another matter. I do not think there is any question of the Board of Trade not being willing to prosecute where a breach of the law is brought to its notice, but the question on the Paper relates to the subject of a marking order.

RUSSIA (TRADE AGREEMENTS).

Mr. THORNE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give any information regarding the Russian-German Trade Agreement resulting in an order to Germany amounting to £16,000,000; whether he can state the terms and conditions of this agreement, including the credit facilities given by Germany; whether these facilities were more advantageous than in the recent agreement between France and Russia in connection with the trading value of £6,000,000; and how
the facilities offered by His Majesty's Government compare with those of France and Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) on 24th June regarding the Russian-German Trade Agreement. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information that the French Government has recently offered new credit facilities to the Soviet Union for the amount stated. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not feel that a useful comparison of terms can be made at the present time since requests for credit in respect of United Kingdom exports to the Soviet Union are now negligible. The position in the event of substantial credit enquiries being received was explained in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on 4th February.

HERRING INDUSTRY (EXPORT CREDITS).

Commander COCHRANE: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department is taking any steps to assist the herring industry to secure payment for goods exported overseas?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. This matter has been taken up by the Export Credits Guarantee Department and as a result guarantees have recently been given by the Department in respect of a large part of this season's shipments of cured herring. The shipments so far covered are expected to exceed £600,000 in value.

Commander COCHRANE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that these facilities are generally known to herring exporters?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I believe they are widely known, but I am taking steps to ensure that as far as possible everyone who may benefit by these facilities shall know about them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: 40 and 41.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) what
procedure is being adopted by the Broadcasting Committee in preparation for the new charter; are the proceedings of the Committee public; will the evidence be made public; and will representatives of organised associations be allowed to give evidence so that all points of view may be taken into consideration before a final decision is reached; and whether all memoranda and minutes are forwarded to the British Broadcasting Corporation for their observations, and will these be made public;
(2) how many meetings the Broadcasting Committee have held; when it is expected their report will be available; and will the minutes and evidence be made public?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): Persons and organisations desiring to submit evidence or representations to the Broadcasting Committee were invited to do so not later than the 31st of May last. The Committee has held 19 meetings up to the present. These meetings are not open to the public nor will the minutes and evidence be made public. It is not the case that the Committee forwards al memoranda and minutes to the British Broadcasting Corporation; but if it desires to obtain the Corporation's reply to any criticisms or suggestions it is within its discretion to do so. The proceedings of the Committee have now reached an advanced stage, but I am not yet in a position to say when its report will be available.

Sir W. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Postmaster-General to use all his power to ensure that as much publicity as possible is given to this evidence and that all points of view will be fully considered before the Committee presents a report?

Sir E. BENNETT: I believe that all points of view have been considered fairly and squarely.

Sir W. SMITHERS: That is not my information.

Sir E. BENNETT: As to the other point, the proceedings are being treated as confidential with the intention of giving as much freedom as possible to the witnesses in the expression of their opinions.

Sir W. SMITHERS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the report of the Broadcasting Committee in the House of Commons before a final decision is taken by the Government as to the terms of the new charter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question when the report of the Committee bas been received.

Sir W. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point of my question is the desirability of having a statement before the report is issued?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PRISONS, PERTH AND GLASGOW.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gist of the report of the secretary of the Prison Department as a result of his visit to Perth prison, during the structural alterations to H 3 quarters, on the condition of the quarters?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): The Secretary of the Prisons Department was satisfied that the structural alteration's referred to, which have now been completed, would render the quarters satisfactory.

Mr. MACLEAN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a number of the prison officers' quarters at Barlinnie prison, Glasgow, are only partly habitable in consequence of the dilapidated state of some of the rooms; that after electric light had been installed the walls were left in an uncompleted state; that they are to remain in this state until the normal period of eight years has elapsed for redecoration, and that through damp walls the paper is falling off; and whether he will give authority for the rooms damaged by the alterations and the rooms that are in a bad state to be done at once or at the earliest convenient time?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The prison officers' quarters at Barlinnie prison are all wholly habitable. The damage done to walls, wallpaper and paint during the installation of electric light was made good although every room was not
entirely redecorated. No case of structurally damp walls has been reported, nor any intimation thereof received. The condition of the rooms does not warrant redecoration at the present time, but should occasion arise redecoration will be undertaken within less than eight years from the date of the last redecoration.

Mr. MACLEAN: When did the last redecoration take place?

The LORD ADVOCATE: There have been redecorations on varying dates.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any indication of the last varying date?

ARREST, ABERDEEN.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr. Donald McAllister, of 34, Castle Street, Aberdeen, was knocked down and assaulted on 31st December last in the lobby of his mother's house at 11, Union Street, Aberdeen, by a number of men with whom he had remonstrated for causing a nuisance there; that no action was taken by the police authorities, who were called in on the night of the assault; that as a result of the injuries he then received Mr. McAllister, after receiving treatment at home and in hospital, died on 21st January last; that one of the men concerned in the assault, after making a statement to the police on the 20th January, was arrested on 24th January on a sheriff's warrant and charged with culpable homicide; that no further proceedings have been taken in the case or communication made to the deceased man's relatives by the police authorities, although evidence is available to prove that Mr. McAllister's death was due to the injuries he received on 31st December; and what action he proposes to take?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am aware that in the course of an altercation on 31st December last in the entry leading to his mother's house at 11, Union Street, Aberdeen, Mr. Donald McAllister received a blow on the nose. The injury was itself of a trivial character and the police on the night of the assault were requested by Mr. McAllister to take no action. Mr. McAllister resumed his work
in the beginning of the year but some days later erysipelas supervened and he was removed to hospital. He died on 21st January from septicaemia and septic pneumonia. The man who struck the blow came forward voluntarily and made a statement to the police. He was arrested on a charge of culpable homicide pending further inquiries. On a careful consideration of the whole circumstances of the case and particularly the medical evidence regarding the causation of death, criminal proceedings were held not to be justified. I see no reason to depart from that decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT VESSELS (AIRCRAFT ATTACKS).

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the announcement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, on 25th June, that Germany is prepared to adhere to the rules in Part IV of the London Naval Treaty relating to the sinking or disablement of merchant vessels by submarines, whether His Majesty's Government would favour an extension of those rules to similar action by sea-planes and other aircraft?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty' Government favour the application of rules similar to those in Part IV of the London Naval Treaty to aircraft operating against merchant vessels.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Will steps be taken, in any future negotiations with other powers, to press that matter forward?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt those points will arise.

Mr. COCKS: Is it not better to abolish these instruments altogether than to wait until after war has been declared, when you never can tell how they are going to be used?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' POWERS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before the end of the present Parliament, the Government will give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the congested state of public business, I
can hold out no hope of an opportunity being afforded for a discussion of this matter. As the hon. Member has been informed on a previous occasion, the views expressed in the report are being borne in mind in relation to current legislation as occasion arises.

Mr. FOOT: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the fact that the recommendations of that report have been consistently ignored for three years, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (BANGALORE).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Maharajah of Mysore in 1881 assigned free of charge to the exclusive management of the British Government the lands forming the civil and military station of Bangalore, and renounced the exercise of all jurisdiction of the land so assigned, and that proposals for retrocession made by the Government of Mysore in 1912 and 1924, respectively, were not accepted by the Government of India; and why the Government of India are now negotiating with the Government of Mysore for the handing over of the civil station of Bangalore to the jurisdiction of the Government of Mysore?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The lands forming the civil and military station of Bangalore were assigned by Mysore to the British Government in 1881 in the manner described by the Noble Lady for the purposes stated in Article 9 of the Mysore Instrument of Transfer. Under that Article the State agreed to the maintenance or establishment of British cantonments whenever and wherever the Governor-General in Council might consider such cantonments necessary. The present negotiations relate to the extent of the area now required by the British Government for the purposes agreed upon. I am not aware of any proposals for retrocession made by the Government of Mysore in 1912. In 1923 His Highness the Maharaja made a personal appeal to the then Viceroy.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will my hon. Friend answer my question as to the
reason why this proposal which he admits was made in 1923 and was not entertained is now being entertained?

Mr. BUTLER: I have given the Noble Lady the reason for the present negotiations. I would remind her that these follow official proposals which were made by the Mysore Government to the Government of India in 1928 and to the Davidson Committee in 1932.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the memorial of protest against the transfer drawn up by trade and ratepayers' associations of British and Anglo-Indians, it is stated that it is a matter of common knowledge that this transfer would not have been agreed to had not Mysore made it a condition of entering the Federation?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (PROTECTION).

Mr. DOBBIE: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is intended to publish the schemes for the protection of the civilian population against gas attack, and what are the reasons for the repeated postponement of their announcement?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): The general circular on civil air-raid precautions is being posted to local authorities to-night. It will be communicated to the Press at the same time, and will be placed on sale to the public. The terms of this circular naturally required the most careful consideration, and, before they could be finally settled, an opportunity had to be given to the new Air Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office to complete its survey of the work done hitherto.

Mr. DOBBIE: 50.
asked the Home Secretary what is the membership of the air raids precautions committee; what is the number of black-outs, the places where they have been held, and their results; and what is the number of blackouts arranged for the month of July?

Captain WALLACE: The committees dealing with the subject of air-raid precautions are sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it would be contrary to established practice to disclose the membership of such subcommittees. Two "black-outs" have
been carried out in the neighbourhood of naval dockyards, at Chatham and Sheerness respectively. Thanks to the loyal co-operation of the public, the results were in general very satisfactory, and are now under detailed examination. No "black-outs" have been arranged to take place in July, but it has already been announced that there will be a "black-out" at Portsmouth in August.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MARRIED WOMEN'S REGULATION.

Miss RATHBONE: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will request the Statutory Committee on Unemployment Insurance to report on the working of the Anomalies Act as it affects the claims of married women?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The working of the Married Women's Regulation was reviewed in 1933 by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, and was amended in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. I do not think that there is ground for a fresh review of the matter by the Statutory Committee at the present time.

INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS.

Miss RATHBONE: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour what contributions from women and girl contributors, respectively, would be necessary to provide the present rates of benefit for these contributors; and what rates of benefit the present contributions of women and girls would yield if the contributions of women and girls were pooled separately from those of men and boys?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Separate accounts are not kept of the income and expenditure of the Unemployment Fund in respect of the various classes of contributors, but it is estimated that during 1934 the contributions received and the benefit paid were approximately as follow:


Males: Contributions,
£47,000,000;


Benefit, £34,500,000.



Females: Contributions,
£15,000,000;


Benefit, £6,000,000.



The hon. Member will appreciate that more than a mere arithmetical calculation based on these figures would be necessary before an estimate could be made of what, if any, higher rates of benefit could be paid to either males or females. Several other factors would have to be taken into account seeing that in addition to benefit the fund as a whole bears the cost of administration, the charge for debt service and sundry grants. The present rates of contributions for the classes as a whole were necessary to finance the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, and any separate pooling of contributions and benefit in respect of women and girls would involve a general reconsideration of the finances of the whole scheme of unemployment insurance.

Miss RATHBONE: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject at the first convenient opportunity.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. CLEARY: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the approximate amount saved, firstly in Liverpool and secondly in the country, by the action of the Unemployment Assistance Board in making deductions in respect of meals granted to necessitous schoolchildren?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Board inform me that no information is available as to the aggregate effect of taking into account free meals provided at school to children in applicants' households. As the hon. Member was informed on 3rd July, there are several classes of cases in which the Board ignore such meals. In the remaining cases in which meals are taken into account to a moderate extent, no consideration of saving to the Exchequer arises.

Mr. CLEARY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to make an inquiry into this subject, in view of the fact that the policy of the Unemployment Assistance Board is militating against the policy of the Board of Education, which encourages the granting of meals in industrial areas particularly?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will certainly consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been made to him by any of the Colonial Governments with regard to the proposals recently made for the conditional transfer of a certain part of British Somaliland to the Italian Government?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have received no such representations regarding the tentative suggestion which was recently made.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION (PROPOSED LONDON AIRPORT).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH (for Mr. LYONS): 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now indicate what further progress has been made with reference to the establishment of a central airport for London?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the City Lands Committee of the Corporation of London is examining the possibility of providing an airport within or near the City of London, and I have no doubt that they are giving every possible attention to the many and varied problems which arise. It will be realised that the investigations in a matter of this kind must inevitably take some time.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Having regard to the fact that the time taken to travel to and from the present airports affects the popularity of the service, particularly at home, will my right hon. Friend do his best to accelerate progress in this connection.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, but anybody who looks at London will realise the difficulty of finding open spaces and what an extraordinarily difficult problem it is.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is anything being done to improve the transport facilities to and from the existing airports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CONTRACTS (CONTROL AND PRICES).

Mr. ATTLEE (for Dr. ADDISON): 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Air
whether he has already inserted a clause in contracts for aircraft supplies by which his officers may examine and verify the costs of production, as well as the general and overhead charges, of the firms concerned; what is the value of the contracts entered into under such terms; and what is the value of the contracts to which such a clause does not apply?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Formal contracts are only now beginning to issue, and I cannot therefore at this stage give any useful statistics on the lines asked for.

RECRUITING.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether arrangements are now complete for enrolling the additional recruits necessary for the enlarged Royal Air Force; and whether he can indicate the proportion of such recruits from each county?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I regret that the information could not be made available at this stage without an undue expenditure of time and labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (CONSUMERS' DEPOSITS).

Mr. DORAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport how much money is held by corporation electricity undertakings from 5s. deposits from consumers; and what benefit do ratepayers get from the interest on such deposits?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The official statistics relating to electricity undertakings do not call for the amount of deposits of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. Such deposits when required by authorised undertakers as security for payments due to them and retained for more than six months are entitled to interest, usually at the rate of 4 per cent., such interest being payable to the consumers out of the revenues of the electricity undertaking.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, a Supplementary Estimate for a New Service may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS REPORTED.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (FINANCE) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th June, to be read the Third time To-morrow.

LONDON BUILDING ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).

Mr. David Reid reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That the Parties promoting the Halifax Extension Bill [Lords] had stated that the Evidence of Mr. John Henry Garner, the Chief Inspector of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. John Henry Garner do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

Ordered, That Mr. John Henry Garner do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Finance Bill,

London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

City of London (St. Paul's Cathedral Preservation) Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL,

"to declare that there may be two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and that in that case neither Under-Secretary is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons; and to declare the effect of section two of the Reelection of Ministers Act, 1919, in relation to certain Ministers who have not the charge of any public department," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Sir Samuel Hoare and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

AIR ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1935).

Estimate presented,—of the additional personnel and the further sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March 1936 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1935.

CLASS I.

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £200,632 (including a Supplementary sum of £7,226), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, and the Salary of a Minister without Portfolio.

[NOTE.—£140,000 has been voted on account.]

3.32 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I move this reduction in order to call attention to various matters in connection with the Ministry for which the Prime Minister is primarily responsible. The first question I would like to put to him is one that I asked a few days ago, and which, as I understood him, he was not able to understand clearly. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands now because I have put it in writing. The point I tried to make across the Table was that, so far as we have been able to gather from conversations with one another in the House, a certain number of the Ministers who are now serving under the Prime Minister have not had any personal or written communications with him on the subject of their appointments. My argument was, and is, that the Ministry from top to bottom is to-day a new one and that each member must receive his appointment from the present Prime Minister. That is laid down in Todd's Parliamentary Government on page 283 as follows:
It is the first Minister alone who can advise changes in an administration and recommend to the Sovereign persons to fill vacancies therein. If he himself should vacate his office by death or resignation or dismissal, the ministry is ipso facto dissolved.
Individual Ministers may retain their offices if permitted by the Sovereign, and may form part of a fresh combination with another head, but this would be a new ministry, and as colleagues of the incoming premier they must make a fresh agreement with him.
On page 205 Todd says:
They all resign when the Cabinet retires or is dismissed, and their offices are placed at the disposal of the statesman who is nominated by the Sovereign as the head of the new Ministry.
The simple question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether those Ministers who continued pending the present Prime Minister taking over, and whose offices were not changed, have been appointed by him to the positions they now hold? We are in the position in which a new Prime Minister has been appointed by His Majesty and he has chosen a new Government, some of whom were members of the previous Government and some of whom are new to the fold. When there were changes in the combination that was formed after the General Election, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was permitted to broadcast, and we certainly had some statement in the House as to what had taken place, and whenever there is a new Prime Minister I think it is usual for him to come to the House of Commons and make a declaration of his policy. In this instance, the day after the completion of the Cabinet—it was the day after so far as the public knows—the right hon. Gentleman went down into the country and made a speech, of which, of course, none of us complain, except as to the substance of the speech; he went into the country and made a declaration of policy. It may very well be that the Government are well assured of the backing of their supporters in the House—and last night proved that, as most Divisions prove it—but there are such things as the dignity and the rights of the House of Commons, irrespective of any majority, however large. I want to claim on behalf of the House of Commons, not on behalf of the Opposition, that the first place where the right hon. Gentleman should have made a declaration of policy as head of the present Government was from that Box in order that it might be discussed. That was not done. We have no idea whether the policy of the Government remains the same nor have we any explanation from the Government. We
may get it to-day, but I maintain that we ought to have had it before to-day.
I think the right hon. Gentleman should have led off to-day with a statement explaining why the Cabinet has been enlarged and what are the actual duties of the Ministers without portfolio and other Ministers. The House of Commons and the country are entitled to know why the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary has left the Foreign Office. I am sure that the Home Office is not a sinecure, but somehow the right hon. Gentleman is now to combine the office of Leader of the House of Commons with that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. No one has been told a word why that change has been made. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, quite straightly, whether he agrees with those who say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has proved himself the worst Foreign Secretary of modern times, and whether that is the reason. I do not know whether he has been shifted up or down. We are entitled to know why that change has been made. It cannot be on the ground of health, and it cannot be on the score that there is no one else who could be appointed deputy leader to the right hon. Gentleman.
Next we should like to be told why Lord Sankey has been given the sack. When Lord Sankey left the Labour party to join the combination, he informed us that he was staying on in order to help forward the work of the India Committees and the consultations that were taking place. He has been "sacked" in the middle of the discussion of the India Bill in the House of Lords, and we should like to know why. Does he disagree with the policy of the present Government? Has there been any change which has caused him voluntarily to relinquish the position, or has he been, like an ordinary workman, just "sacked"? I do not know whether I ought to commiserate with him, but it does add one more pension to the big list of pensions given to ex-Lord Chancellors.
Then we should like to know why Lord Londonderry has been shifted. We understand that Lord Londonderry is an ex-airman, that he knows all about the Air Force, and, speaking without any sort of feeling on the subject, I personally think that he was a very efficient Minister
for Air. But he did happen to make speeches in the House of Lords on the question of air armaments in which he appeared to take a different point of view from that of other spokesmen of the Government. He gloried in the fact that aeroplanes and air warfare generally—air bombing, and so on—had not been obliterated; that is to say, he considered the Air Force to be necessary as a weapon either of offence or of defence. We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman why he has now been given the sinecure post of Lord Privy Seal in order to lead the House of Lords. I should not have thought that was a full-time job, anyhow, but we are told that is why he occupies that position.
There are two other Ministers about whom we should like to know something. So far as the late Prime Minister is concerned, we understand that ill-health has caused him to resign, and I can say quite truthfully that I know that that is a fact, and I regret that he should be in that position and hope that the rest he is getting will help him to recover. The late Home Secretary I saw in the House yesterday. As to the late Minister of Health, I am not sure whether it is on the score of bad health or why it is that he has gone out, whether he acted voluntarily or whether room had to be found for other people. With regard to the late Home Secretary, he always seemed to be in such robust health and strength that I do not know why he should be shifted and the right hon. Gentleman put into his place, but I hope the Prime Minister will tell us.
When we come to the new appointments, so far as they are younger men—perhaps I am not the person who should say this—I rejoice with the right hon. Gentleman or any other Leader of the Government that there should be more younger men at the head of affairs than has been the custom. The work of the Cabinet is infinitely harder now than it was, and, also, we need younger minds, though I am bound to say that when I listen in this place to some who are young in point of years I think their minds are very old indeed. I would point out to the Committee that on one occasion the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. - Colonel Moore - Brabazon), speaking from behind us—and I think he also said some rather uncomplimentary
things about us—warned the Government that there were enough capable people in the House outside the Government to form three or four Ministries.
We challenge the whole principle on which the Prime Minister has based his appointments to this Cabinet. We believe it is a principle which will lead to disaster in the future. Ministers are not chosen, as I understand it, because of their ability, but are chosen in sections to represent what are called the various sections which make up this combination called the National Party. On that I want to say that however my colleagues and others have described this combination since 1931 I have never accepted the proposition that party politics had been buried, and that the Government of the day were a Government representative of the nation as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has no more title to be called the Prime Minister of a National Government than any other Prime Minister of my time, anyhow. The right hon. Gentleman certainly commands a great majority in this House, but he knows perfectly well that few as our numbers are we here represent at least one-third of those who voted at the election, and you cannot call a Government national which represents only two-thirds of the electorate. Further than that, in 1931, when this sort of slogan was invented, the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party now below the Gangway on this side sat with the right hon. Gentleman, and they represent another fairly big section of the electorate.
I consider it is what is called "cheek and impudence" on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to go masquerading around the country saying "Whatever you do, let us keep up the unity of the nation." There has been no unity politically, no unity at all, and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that on every occasion we here, few as we are, have tried to put the point of view of the nearly 7,000,000 electors whom we represent in this House, and when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends go about the country telling the electors that the day of party politics is finished they know they are talking downright rubbish, undiluted nonsense, and none of them knows it better than the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): Why tell me?

Mr. LANSBURY: I thought I would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is all. I will tell him why I tell him; I do myself the honour of reading his speeches, and I know the guff that he talks. The Government keep up this pretence, and it, is a sheer pretence. I am sorry the Lord President of the Council has gone. He and his dozen friends represent their constituencies, as I do, and as do other hon. Members, but none of the 13 has the right to claim that they represent those with whom they formerly associated, and whom they left in 1931. It requires to be said in this place that the fiction that there is any such thing as a National Labour Movement is absolutely untrue. The right hon. Gentleman and his dozen friends represent their constituents, but not a trade union in the country, a co-operative society, or a Socialist society went over with them. Nevertheless those 13 Members claim the right to have three seats in the Cabinet and two assistant ministerial posts. If they are, in the judgment of the Prime Minister, the best men, well and good, but do not let us be told that they are there because they represent Labour in this country. They represent Labour only in the same manner as does any other Member of this House. Like the right hon. Gentleman I represent a party in this House, as does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen but the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council does not represent any party in the country. Therefore, we want—I and my friends—to enter an emphatic protest against the policy of the Prime Minister in forming a Government on the assumption that it is representative of all parties in the State, and that party politics have had no existence since 1931.
I will say a word about party politics. As I understand it, party politics are excellent when they are Tory politics. They are only bad when people like myself want to secure a majority for their party. Only yesterday we heard that we took up causes and made a lot of the grievances of people, in order that we might win power. I would like to know what anybody else does in this House. I hear people here talking about their trade, the trade of their district, their business men and their localities, who
want tariffs or subsidies, or some help from the Government, and that is all considered quite right. You must think we are children if you think we take any notice of what you say on these matters. I call attention to it only in the hope that some of the people whom right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench address will know, when it is said that party politics have been buried, that the speakers are talking with their tongues in their cheeks.
There is a much more serious side to this matter. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman made a great speech on democracy, with almost every word of which I agree, when he was speaking to the meeting of the Commonwealth representatives in Westminster Hall. I should like to say to him that there is something that destroys democracy in a much quicker manner than Fascism or dictatorship or anything else, and that is any suspicion of corruption. I have had a bitter experience of this. Almost from the day when the late Will Crooks and myself entered public life as Poor Law guardians, we were pursued by a vendetta of people who charged us with every political and social crime that could be conceived. I think we have had at least half-a-dozen public inquiries into our administration and the various Presidents of the Local Government Board and Ministers of Health from the time of the late Sir James Davey, who made an exhaustive inquiry in the nineties to the present time, all of them have said that whatever charges might be levelled against us for giving money away too lavishly, no one could ever say that any of us had been guilty, directly or indirectly, of corruption. The late Charles Booth said of Will Crooks and myself that we had maintained, or rather that we had introduced, a public spirit into East London that was lifting up the administration of affairs in those parts. I beg the House to believe that I do not claim a single vestige of virtue about these things above anybody else, but when the London Municipal Reform Society issued a leaflet 10 days ago, charging my friends in the various borough councils and on the London County Council—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I have so far given this Debate a great deal of latitude, but I am bound to hold that matters dealing with local
government cannot be raised on the Prime Minister's salary.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am using it as an argument. I am surely entitled to do so. I think if you allow me to finish you will see the point. The London Municipal Reform Society issued a leaflet charging people with using their position to get their friends jobs in various ways. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I would say it to the Lord President of the Council were he here, that it leaves a very ugly taste in the mouth that in this rearrangement the Lord President of the Council goes to £2,000 a year and his son, who has been in public life only for a few years, goes to a position of £5,000. I may be told that that is quite in the order of things; well, the people with whom I mix outside have said many things about this Government to me—they are more or less my political friends—but the one thing they do not understand is that. Neither do they understand how it is that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), having been in the House a very short time, is sent, over the heads of everybody else, to become Civil Lord of the Admiralty. It all may be defended on the plea that these 13 men have the right to these seats in the Ministry. I say that that is a principle which, I believe, will destroy people's confidence in this House and in our general reputation. It will be for the right hon. Gentleman to controvert what I have just said, and which I will repeat, namely, that of all the changes which have been discussed outside, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has gone to £2,000, and his son has gone to £5,000, and that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, after only being here a very few months, becomes Civil Lord of the Admiralty, has left a very bad taste in the mouth.
I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President give excellent advice to people like myself in local government. I am perfectly certain that had a borough council taken two of its members and given them positions relatively the same as these this House would have been full of questions to the Minister of Health which would have been supported by the right hon. Gentleman. All of us in this House, or a very large large number of us, heard the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) dealing with this subject during one of
the Debates on India. The point be made was that it was quite right that men should come to Parliament and legitimately hope to get a position on the Front Bench. Perhaps my colleagues will not agree with me when I say that I believe true democracy will compel this House ultimately to give one flat rate of payment to all Members, and that those who give service more than others will be satisfied with the honour of giving their service. I know that that may sound very extraordinary, but speaking for myself, I do not understand the principle which sends to this House lawyers who, after a few years, and sometimes less than a few years, find themselves on the Bench. I would prefer that no judge was appointed except from outside politics altogether. I think we should have a better administration of justice, and a much better government. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman something else. When that band of people, of whom the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) was one, started, they were very poor men, and they were all proud of giving public service. I believe that the true test of democracy will be found when many of you—for I shall not be here in the days to come—are willing to give voluntary service without any hope of being anybody in particular, and without any hope of monetary reward.
I come to the question of the Ministers without Portfolio, and I repeat what I said at the beginning, that it is a pretty tall order that I should have to raise this question before the right hon. Gentleman has given any explanation. As to the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs, we were told that there was to be a Supplementary Estimate, but I do not think that is good enough when there are two to be appointed. With regard to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), I would like to ask, to whom is he responsible? Has he a chief? Is he under the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, or under the instructions of the Cabinet? What is his position? And has he a room at the Foreign Office where he has a secretariat, or is he just a glorified assistant or a glorified undersecretary? I think this is very important, because if he has to go about and speak for the nation, or for the Government, his status should be settled. If
he is a sort of ambassador-extraordinary to the various courts which he visits, I should like to know whether that is because the present ambassadors employed by the country are not able to carry out their duties properly. We are not opposed to a Minister representing the nation on the League of Nations, but we are in disagreement about this sort of double-headed arrangement by which there is a Foreign Secretary here and a sort of deputy-Foreign Secretary not only carrying out duties at the League of Nations in Geneva, but at the various capitals also. Then I understand that there is to be a new Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that we have just introduced a Bill for his appointment. Of course, there will be a Supplementary Estimate for him later on. To whom is he responsible? Is he part of the hierarchy at the Foreign Office?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has already called the attention of the Committee to the fact that this would need legislation. I think that that had better be discussed when the Bill is introduced. The question of other Ministers does not involve legislation.

Mr. LANSBURY: With your permission, I will only say that, as we are discussing these new Estimates, which are quite novel, it would be to the advantage of the Committee that we should judge what their position is. That is all that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman. Then we come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings. He has been a good friendly critic of the Government. I should not have thought that he needed to do much thinking. He has talked to us a great deal, and he has also written a book which he recommended me to read to know what he thought ought to be done about employment. So that all that the Noble Lord has to do is to hand his book to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, just as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has handed in his documents, and get ahead with it. Apparently, the Noble Lord is to do thinking for the Government. Will people think that they need it? We know they think, but they think wrongly—that is all. We challenge these two appointments, not because we are not in favour of certain Ministers being
appointed to plan. I was rather amused yesterday to hear the right hon. Gentleman's description about planning. I suggest that he should have a real heart to heart talk with the Noble Lord, because if there is one who believes in planning in this House it is he, and yesterday I understand the right hon. Gentleman did not think much of that much-used word.
There are three more or less sinecure appointments—the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy—and I think also I might include another to make up four, the First Commissioner of Works. When I held the last-named post I was told, and I found it was true, that I would of require all my time in that position, and that I might assist the Dominions Secretary, the then Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy in trying to discover how to deal with unemployment. Well, we all know what happened. It amuses me very much, because if there was one popular Member of the late Government it was the Secretary of State for the Dominions. He used to stand at that Box and tell us of the millennium the day after to-morrow, and the ranks behind cheered. He was the one success in the Labour Government, and that is why you have taken him over. I am told that he is the only success in this Government. Anyhow, when I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time, he replied that he found he had a very great deal to do when he was Lord President. But he did manage to lead the House as Deputy-Leader; in fact, he was the Leader.
I really cannot believe that the office of Lord President of the Council is a fulltime job. We know that the Lord Privy Seal's is not. Everybody has admitted that. You may give him a sort of job in the House of Lords to lead it, although the House of Lords never wants any leading. I cannot help thinking that one or other Minister might have done that. As for the Chancellor of the Duchy, I have a great respect for the present holder of that office, and know that he did a great deal of work going out to India. But now that that job is finished, what is he going to do with his spare time? Why should we appoint two extra Ministers in these circumstances? These are days of economy when every penny has to be
looked at. I cannot make out why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to all this.
I cannot understand why the holders of these offices could not carry out the duties that are being put upon the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I believe that in the Labour Government in 1924—I am not sure, and am open to correction—that the Lord President of the Council represented that Labour Government very largely at Geneva, and was to all intents and purposes the Minister for League of Nations Affairs; and I should have thought that, instead of swelling the Cabinet to its present size, it would have been possible to utilise those offices for this purpose. We are not opposed to the setting apart of certain Ministers to think and plan and co-ordinate the work of Departments connected with employment and trade, or to think out questions connected with foreign affairs, but we think that this continual expansion of offices, this continual piling up of Ministries, must in the end bring about the worst results to the Parliamentary system. We think that the Prime Minister, in forming this Government, has committed a great blunder. We think that he and his party should have taken advantage, not of the Lord President, but of the position created by his retirement, to recast the Ministry and make it what it is in fact—a good, straightforward Tory Government.
It is, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, politically dishonest for him to say that he and his Government represent the nation. They do nothing of the kind. He knows perfectly well that, when the General Election comes, we shall be ranged up in our different parties and fighting as partisans. Why? Not because any of us is any worse than any other, but because we believe that the particular principles which we hold are better for the future of the country than those held by the people to whom we are opposed. There is nothing wrong in party politics as party politics, but we resent very much indeed the fact that the Prime Minister has formed his Government on a sectional basis—so sectional that he himself did not understand the fractional arrangements that had been made. We are told by the
Press that he sent one list along, and it had to come back to have a change made, one of his friends being left out and someone else put in. I think that that is pretty bad. I have not any hope, of course, that this reduction which we are moving will be carried, but I think the House of Commons will go away and think a good deal, not so much about what I have said, but, about the fact that we have come to the point now when men are appointed, not at all because of their allegiance to any particular faith, but because the Government of the day wishes to keep up the fiction that it is a combination of men representative of the nation, whereas it is only representative of a portion of the nation.

4.20 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: My hon. Friends and I have also put down a Motion for a reduction of this Vote, but, before I give the reasons why we have done so, I should like to make a few observations on some of the points which have just been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. His speech began with the presentation of three points. The first was a constitutional one, which I confess I am still not able to understand, just as the Government were not able to understand the point when he put it across the Table a few days ago. Of course, when the Prime Minister changes, the whole Ministry changes, and it is a new Administration. But it is also, I should have thought, a matter of course that any Minister who retains the same office continues in that office.

Mr. LANSBURY: Such people as I have consulted, and such books as I have consulted, say that each individual member of the new Ministry must make a new agreement with the new Prime Minister.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Undoubtedly, each has an understanding with the new Prime Minister, but constitutionally he does not vacate his office. In the case of a Secretary of State, the question is whether the ceremony of his installation in office has to be repeated on the new occasion. For example, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who, under the previous Prime Minister, held the same office, does not, under the new Prime Minister, surrender his seals to the King, and does not receive them again from
His Majesty. Consequently, he continues in office, and there is no question of a change such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Indeed, the passage which he read from a constitutional authority on the subject made that perfectly clear. I caught the words in the course of that paragraph that the individual Minister who does not change his office remains in it.

Mr. LANSBURY: No; that is not so. The paragraph says:
Individual Ministers may retain their offices if permitted by the Sovereign, and may form part of a fresh combination with another head, but this would be a new Ministry, and, as colleagues of the incoming Premier, they must make a fresh agreement with him.

Sir H. SAMUEL: With him, yes, but not with His Majesty. They remain in the service of His Majesty as they were before, and do not in fact vacate their office. That is the sentence to which I referred in the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman read. His second point was that he complained that there had been no declaration of policy in the House of Commons by the new Prime Minister, and I agree that probably it would have been more proper and more in accordance with precedent for such a declaration to have been made. But I cannot profess any very great indignation at the omission. What I am more concerned about is, not the absence of a declaration, but the absence of a policy; and, since the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday showed very clearly that on the greatest domestic issue at home, namely, the question of unemployment, the Government have no policy, and since on other matters they do not show any very vigorous effort to reveal any policy at the present time, I cannot, as I say, feel particularly grieved that the Prime Minister did not come here and summon the whole House of Commons to meet him in order to exhibit a vacuum.
The third point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the discussion to-day ought properly to have been opened by a statement from the Prime Minister, and there I entirely agree with him. Here is an important proposal made to Parliament for the appointment of three additional Ministers. Two of them are provided for by this Vote, and the appointment of the third is to be dealt with in a separate Bill. I think the
Prime Minister ought to have come to the House and given us at the outset of our discussions definite and clear reasons why it is necessary to make these additional appointments of officials of the State, and to impose these further charges upon the public Exchequer. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, since the War there has been a great multiplication of offices. Some hon. Members may think that this was unnecessary; most of them probably think that it was necessary; but certainly the number has been considerable.
Since 1914, the following new ministerial offices have been created: a Minister for Air; a Minister of Labour; a Minister for the Dominions; a Minister of Transport; a Minister of Pensions; a Minister of Mines; a Secretary for Overseas Trade; an Under-Secretary for the Dominions; a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour; and a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Ten new offices have been created. On the other hand, there have disappeared from our Constitution the two Irish offices of Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, so there has been a net addition of eight. Now we are to have three more, bringing the total of the additional offices up to 11. Besides all these, there are, of course, the unpaid posts of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, all of them meaning that individual members of Parliament, mostly in the House of Commons—some may be in the House of Lords—are attached to Ministers, and, while they have certain useful if not very conspicuous functions to perform, they have one very definite duty, and that is to give to the Government of the day on all occasions an unwavering, unquestioning, and even unreasoning support.
Here, therefore, we have 11 Ministers and 11 private secretaries, or 22 in all, mostly Members of the House of Commons, who are now attached to the Administration or are members of it. That is a matter of no small importance. Since the functions of the State are continually growing, and new duties are imposed upon the Executive, it is no doubt necessary to make special provision and to create a number of new ministries, but the fact that that necessity arises and has to be recognised is not a reason for going on to create other new ministries which may not have the same justification.
On the contrary, the fact that certain new ministries are necessary is all the more reason for regarding with a very careful and scrupulous eye any further proposals for making new appointments. It is also recognised as very desirable that there should be some ministers, in the present immense complexity of public affairs both at home and abroad, who should have the leisure at their command to frame policies, perhaps to carry on propaganda, and certainly to devote themselves to special questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), among his proposals, has suggested that there should be created a special Cabinet—he suggests of five members—for dealing with some of the difficult problems of the day without the continuous pressure of Departmental duties. But that is not what the Government are now proposing; it is not part of their present proposals.
In any case, the chief point that I wish to make to-day is that there are already four offices which we have inherited from times past, which have no specific Departmental duties, and which ought to be used for purposes such as these. There was a Select Committee of the House in 1920 which considered the question of the remuneration of Ministers, and in the report of that Committee there is mentioned the fact that there are four practically sinecure offices, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Those four offices exist precisely for this very purpose. The First Lord of the Treasury is also Prime Minister, and, although he has no Department of his own, of course, he has the chief duty of being the plan-maker for the Government and dealing with large questions of policy and framing the general course of administration. The Lord President of the Council has practically no Departmental duties. I was surprised to hear the present Prime Minister say a few days ago that when he held the office of the Lord President of the Council it was the heaviest job he had ever had. He has held the offices of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, President of the Board of Trade, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, and to suggest that the office of Lord President of the Council is comparable to those can only have been a figure of speech. No doubt he
may have had, as Deputy Leader of the House in the absence of the then Prime Minister through ill-health for long periods, to act as Premier both in the House and in the Cabinet. The Lord President of the Council has some duties to perform in connection with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research and a few duties of that kind, but they are small and light.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman in error? Did not the Prime Minister say he had never worked so hard for so little money?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think my version of what the right hon. Gentleman said is correct. As to the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I have twice had the honour of holding that office myself, and I know that there is about two hours work a week for an able-bodied man. The office is always given to persons who are expected to perform other functions or whom it is desired to have in the Cabinet and for whom there may be no Departmental office vacant at the moment. The Lord Privy Seal is an office which is entirely a sinecure. Why is it that those offices have not been used on this occasion for providing posts for those persons whom it was desired to have in the Ministry to perform non-departmental work? The reason, I suggest, is that the present Prime Minister, when he reconstructed the Ministry, had a very difficult task. He had to fit in a number of different pieces. He was not free, as he was free when he formed his Government in 1924, to pick whomever he thought the best man to fill the post. He had to consider the claims of the various groups that participate in the present combination. He had to keep up the symmetry of the facade of the present Government and to provide not only for the central block but also for the two wings. Therefore, not being able simply to pick persons to fill the posts, he had to create posts to suit the persons. And that is, in my view, the real reason why these three posts are being created, that there was such a pressure for office from so many quarters that he has had to expand the Ministry to meet it.
Take, for example, the Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs?
I do not think there is a Member of the House in any quarter who does not rejoice that the present occupant of that office should be a Member of the Government and a Member of the Cabinet. We should be sorry indeed if anything were said to indicate a different opinion. But why should he not have continued in the office which he already held as Lord Privy Seal? That is precisely the kind of office which was intended for work of that character. Is it intended to create, as part of the Constitution, a permanent Minister for League of Nations Affairs? We have never heard of that suggestion before. I do not know that it has ever been proposed in any quarter. Has any other nation created such a post? Is it intended that all the members of the League of Nations should create Ministries of that character? If not, why should this country alone assume a kind of special ownership of the League of Nations by being the only Government to create a Minister for League of Nations Affairs? Then, again, an Under-Secretary is proposed for that Ministry, although what functions he will have to perform no one can yet foresee. Here again it is intended, apparently, that the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranbourne) should be the incumbent of that office, and the only justification I know for the creation of the office would be the suitability of the Noble Lord who is intended to fill it. The post is created for the person and not the person appointed to fill the post. Further, with regard to the Noble Lord who is to be Minister without Portfolio without further title, why should not he have been given the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster unless it was that purely personal considerations intervened?
If further compression of the Ministry was desired, or combinations of offices, in order to make room for some other Ministers, again and again we have found the Dominions and the Colonial Office combined under one head and, as far as I am aware, the arrangement has worked exceedingly well. In various Cabinets recently we have had the Foreign Secretary and a Dominions-plus-Colonial Office Secretary and one Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office and two at the Dominions and Colonial Offices. Now in place of that number of Ministers we are to have two Cabinet Ministers for
the Foreign Office, we are to have two Cabinet Ministers for the Dominions and Colonies, and no fewer than four Under-Secretaries.
With respect to the Minister without portfolio, in the first place I should like to challenge that title. Why "Minister without Portfolio?" Why the introduction of this Continental term not known to the British Constitution? It does not distinguish the Minister from any of his colleagues because, as far as I know, no Minister in this country has a portfolio. If he had been called "Minister without a despatch box," or "Minister without red tape," or "Minister without pigeonholes," that would indeed be very distinctive. Why this negative title at all? Has there been devised a new ceremony of installation? Secretaries of State receive their Seals. The Lord Chancellor receives the Great Seal from His Majesty. How does the Minister without portfolio not receive a portfolio? Is there a red leather portfolio stamped with the Royal Arms in gold on the table at the Privy Council? The Minister, I presume, presents himself to His Majesty. The King would take from the Clerk to the Council the red leather portfolio, extend it to the Minister, and withdraw it, and it would be put back in a drawer and the Minister would leave the presence backwards with extended, empty hands.
I imagine that he will be the Minister to do the thinking for the Government. We have been told repeatedly on official authority that that is to be his function. He is to be the Minister who has to think out policies for the Government, and very necessary the duty is. I assume that he will have an office, or at least a cell. He will retire from the Sessions of Parliament for what Shakespeare calls "the sessions of sweet silent thought." Why should not he have some title indicating his functions—Minister for Quiet Cogitation or some other title of the kind? I am sure that in the long annals of the Chinese Empire a great many such titles could be found. Is he to have an escutcheon on his notepaper—a coat of arms? If so, I would suggest four blank quarterings in order to indicate an open and receptive mind. The colour green would indicate simplicity and vernal productiveness. The badge ought to be a reproduction of Rodin's Thinker and the
motto Descartes' famous phrase, Cogito ergo sum—I think; therefore I am.
I know that this term, Minister without Portfolio, is to be found, by those who are curious enough to make research, in the year 1915, and it was my own chief, Mr. Asquith, in whose Ministry such an office is to be found. It was Lord Lansdowne in the Coalition Government of 1915 who, without salary, was appointed and who was described in the List of Ministers as Minister without Portfolio, but not in the Statute. There was a Statute passed a year or two later dealing with various new appointments to the Ministry of 1917 and the only title that was given to this Minister was "a person appointed to be a Minister of the Crown at a salary without any other office being assigned to him," and the side note of the Statute was, "Right of certain Ministers to sit in Parliament." That was an evasion. The draftsmen in those days did not know what title to give. The index to the Volume of Statutes, but not the Statute itself, uses the term "Minister without Portfolio" and it reappears in the Supplementary Estimate that we are considering to-day. My point is, first, whether it is necessary to have any Minister of that type at all, seeing that you have these ancient offices, and secondly, whether, if there is to be such, some better title could not be devised more in consonance with our traditions. Since we have such great names as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, names which are redolent of centuries of British history, why should we introduce this new title which merely brings with it an aroma of Continental politicians.

4.43 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not know whether it is the hot weather or the approaching end of the Session, but I do not seem able to do anything right to-day. I do not know whether I owe the House an apology for not having opened the Debate. I certainly understood that the Leader of the Opposition was willing to begin and, knowing the number of points that were going to be raised, I thought it would be simpler, certainly for me and possibly for the House, if I did what I had to do in one speech rather than in two. I
should certainly have had to make a second speech to meet the points that had been raised. I will, first of all, deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and a number of points that he raised, with most of which I can deal, though with some I do not think that I can. There was one charge that I never like to have made against me, and that is want of respect in my treatment of the House. I should like to assure him that, in not making any particular statement when I assumed office as head of the Government, I was strictly following recent precedents. There was no statement when Mr. Asquith succeeded Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. I was in the House at the time. There was no statement made when I succeeded Mr. Bonar Law in 1923. I would just observe that there was no malice prepense in my making a political speech at Himley the day after I became Prime Minister. That had been arranged months before. It was a curious and happy coincidence for me that it happened to be near my own home country. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to imagine what sort of a speech he might make in Bow and Bromley supposing he had just become Prime Minister.
I must say a few words about the question which the right hon. Gentleman raised two or three weeks ago. I apologised to him, and I apologised to the House for my inability to apprehend his point at that moment. I confess that it seemed to be so remote in fact that I did not grasp it until I realised that it was based upon that passage in Mr. Todd's book which he read to-day. That passage in Mr. Todd's book I do not think is as clear as it might be, but what is contained in that passage is not consistent with practice, not at all. I have had all these cases looked up in the Privy Council Office, which is the office responsible for the swearing in of all Ministers when they take office, and there are precedents for the resignation of a Prime Minister without the other Members of the Administration vacating office going back at least as far as 1761, when the elder Pitt retired without his retirement involving the downfall of the rest of the Cabinet. When Lord Goderich, afterwards Lord Ripon, formed a Government after the death of George Canning in 1827 a number of the members of the
Cabinet retained their offices and were not re-appointed or re-sworn, and further examples occurred when Lord Russell in 1865 succeeded Lord Palmerston, in 1902 when Mr. Balfour succeeded Lord Salisbury, in 1908 when Mr. Asquith succeeded Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and in 1923 when I succeeded Mr. Bonar Law.
What happens in fact is that when a Prime Minister resigns the King, if he accepts the resignation, immediately sends for someone to carry on the Government. Everyone places his resignation formally in the hands of whoever is to form the Government, so as to give him a free hand to make any changes he may think desirable, but until any one or all of those resignations are accepted the office goes on without any break at all, and no Minister receives a seal afresh or is sworn in those circumstances, unless a change is involved by a resignation having been accepted and someone else taking office. That is a summary of the constitutional position which has been the practice certainly, as I said, for about 150 years or more. It applies right through the Government and to all Ministers.
I think it only fair to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to let them know the sequence of events, because he made it a matter of complaint that lists of Ministers were not issued with the rapidity with which he thought they might have been. The late Prime Minister tendered his resignation on the Friday. I was invited to become Prime Minister. I accepted, and kissed hands. I was able to make such changes as were necessary in the Cabinet very speedily, and the list, if I remember aright, appeared the next morning. Such changes as I thought necessary with regard to the Under-Secretaries were kept over until after the holidays, and every one, of course, carried on. No resignations had been accepted. They were made with all speed when I returned to London, and the appointments were announced as soon as made. There was one made by itself. The Comptroller of His Majesty's Household was made singly, and announced singly.
There is one other point just here. The right hon. Gentleman pressed me for some time as to why the changes were made, and that is a matter, with profound respect to the House, which I do
not feel at liberty to discuss. It is a matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible, and I will only say that one or two theories which have been put forward are, as theories often are, very wide from the facts. The freedom of choice of a Prime Minister in a democratic system is to my mind one of the most important and valuable privileges and prerogatives that we have—absolute and complete freedom to recommend to His Majesty whomever he may think fit. There is one observation I should like to make because it was touched upon by both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, and I must say a word about it. The experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) of Coalitions, of course, is small. It is confined to what I hope was not to him an unhappy twelve months.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, 1915.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. When I became a coalitionist I remember that for some reason or other he had gone, but I never asked him the reason.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reference. I resigned with Mr. Asquith and the whole of that Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am much obliged. That does not really affect my argument or what I am going to say. Of course, there are obvious difficulties in any Government which consists of members of more than one party. Everyone knows that. I heard with great regret some of the observations that the right hon. Gentleman opposite made, but, with regard to the point that he made, this is my reply. It may be true, much of what he said, about the relation of my colleagues who were in the last Labour Ministry and the Labour party in the country, but that is not the point. The point that I have to judge is this. We, that is the Government, had an enormous majority at the last election. That majority was attained on national grounds, as we put them forward, and our majority was undoubtedly far larger than it would have been owing to the help that was brought to the combination of parties by those who had been members of the Labour party, and, there can be no doubt, by the speeches of my right
hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary, and I think perhaps as much as anything the broadcasts of Lord Snowden. When the Government was formed, as was made clear to the country at that time, having obtained that majority, certain proportions were observed in the formation of the Government which accorded, I think, not unfairly—and no one thought them unfair at the time—with the proportions that ought to have been observed in the Government. Can any Member of this House, looking at it impartially, imagine me, called in to advise His Majesty in what must be the last months, whether it be six or twelve, of the present Government, going back on what we did and what we arranged at that time? It may be that none of us represent to-day the voting strength that we did then. That will be decided before too long. But I regard the mandate that was given us at the last election to be a mandate that holds until the dissolution, and the arrangements that were made after that last election are the arrangements which should hold until the election.

Mr. LOGAN: Was this arrangement entered into before the election took place?

The PRIME MINISTER: We will wait and see; that does not come on this Estimate. The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and I think perhaps it is the main question to be raised—and as it was raised also by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I hope that I may be able to make a few observations upon it without getting out of order with the Chair—is the question: that he asked about the relations of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for League of Nations work. Now here I take the House completely into my confidence. This is a temporary arrangement, and by that I mean that I cannot speak for the next Government, which I decided to make after a very mature consideration to meet the very special circumstances that exist now and which I think will exist for another 12 months. It may be more, I do not know. But there never has been a time when there have been more matters of the utmost gravity for this country, for Europe and for the world as exists today in foreign affairs. I wanted to get into that office not only certainly the best men for it, but II wanted to get as
strong a team as we could find in this country for the work that lies ahead.
I hope that the experiment will succeed, and, if it fails, I shall have to try something else, but both Ministers are Cabinet Ministers, and therefore equal. Difficulties, of course, may arise, but, if there are serious differences of opinion on matters of policy, then undoubtedly the Prime Minister as head of the Government will have to take whatever steps he considers necessary to alter that state of things. But at present the concert is close between those Ministers and myself, and those Ministers and the Cabinet, and this is a time when the closest concert between every Member of the Government on foreign affairs is necessary. We have some appallingly difficult problems to meet, and in whatever way those problems are approached they are going to be appallingly difficult problems whatever policy is adopted. I did this deliberately to strengthen the department which I believed needed to be as strong a department to-day as we could possibly devise.
It would be out of order, I think, to say anything about the new Secretary—he will have a Vote of his own—butand I hope that I shall not be out of order in this—I regard the presence of the second Under-Secretary as completing the team for this work which lies in front of us. I made the choice with great care. The Minister for League of Nations affairs, and the Noble Lord whom I proposed for this office have worked together with great sympathy and great success in Europe now for a long time past. They thoroughly understand each others ways of working, and I think that they will be an extremely strong pair for the work that lies before us, and I have every confidence, if the House sanctions these arrangements, that their work will be of benefit to the country.
There was an observation which the right hon. Gentleman made, the point of which really was that it brought out once more the discrepancy in Cabinet Ministers' salaries, and I should like to say a word about that. I have suggested for the Minister without Portfolio a salary of £3,000. If I remember aright, the last time that £5,000 was suggested for that office there was a motion for reduction. I put it down at £3,000 for
this reason, that I hoped it might draw the attention of the House to the absurd discrepancy in the rates of pay in the Cabinet. The day of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke when we shall all be content to work for nothing, or next to nothing, will be a great day, if it ever occurs, but it is not coming yet, and we have to pay the servants of the State, and any system I think is quite indefensible under which two or three of the hardest worked Ministers, in the most difficult offices, are only paid £2,000 a year while others are paid £5,000. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture are two cases in point. Two committees have sat within recent years on this subject and have made recommendations, but no Government has yet taken the matter up. I hope that some day that may be put right.
To come to the Minister without Portfolio, I assume that the quotation that was made by the right hon. Member for Darwen was from the Haldane Report. He said something about a report on Ministerial offices.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It was the report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons.

The PRIME MINISTER: There was the Haldane Report, which came out in December, 1918, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from that. There have been reports of various committees on this subject. I might say, in passing, that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's observations about the name of the Minister without Portfolio. I took it from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That was the title that he gave to Ministers who were appointed during and after the War. It is an interesting fact to remember, and the House may not be familiar with it, that there are many precedents in the course of the last century for appointing Ministers without any office at all. They were not called Ministers without Portfolio. That phrase only came in at the time of the War. I have long held the view, and I am sure the whole House will agree with this, that some Ministers without Departments are necessary and invaluable in a modern Cabinet.
Just a word on the work of the Cabinet. Everyone admits—the right hon. Gentleman opposite admitted—that the work of
the modern Cabinet is infinitely greater than that of Cabinets certainly during the greater part of the last century. I remember when Lord Balfour became Lord President of the Council in 1925, on the death of Lord Curzon, he told me that in his view the work of the Cabinet was three or four times what it was when he first took office in the middle eighties of the last century. I am sure that every word that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs employed in justifying the appointments that he made, particularly after the War, are as true to-day as they were when he uttered them. There is no relief in the work of the Government. Indeed, the problems become greater with the years, and they seem to come with increasing rapidity one after another.
The right hon. Member for Darwen suggested that we could get all the help that we wanted from what he called the sinecure offices. The office of First Commissioner of Works is not a sinecure.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I did not mention it.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, it was not the right hon. Gentleman; it was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a sinecure, although it is one of the offices that does leave the Minister more time to devote to general Cabinet work than any of the big Departments. With regard to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, we cannot discuss his conduct in the House, because his salary is not paid by Parliament. If the Chancellor of the Duchy does his work, he has quite a responsible task before him, because he is responsible for the management of the Duchy estates. I know that very often Ministers do treat that office as a sinecure, but, if the Minister looks after the things himself, with the aid of his officers, then he cannot give full time even if he were a Member of the Cabinet to the work that has to be done. To be a member of the Cabinet and Leader of the House of Lords takes up a good deal of time, and I felt that it was essential to have a Minister entirely free from departmental duties who could help us in all the investigations and work of the nature that come constantly before a modern Government, in addition to all those appalling problems of foreign affairs, defence, India, and questions that arise all over the world.
I particularly wanted the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), with his trained and clear mind, to help me and to help the Cabinet in the consideration of many questions, particularly relating to social services and unemployment. I am sure that he will be of great assistance to his colleagues, and I do not think that anybody need think that the Government and the House will not get full value for the modest salary for which I have asked.
The right hon. Gentleman put questions to me as to the qualifications of my various colleagues. Again, for certain reasons, I do not feel prepared to enter upon any discussion of that question in this House or anywhere else. I have tried to deal with the points that have been raised, and I hope very much that the House will give us the Vote. There are some important matters to be debated later, and at whatever time the Committee may think fit to bring this Vote to an end we will proceed with the subject that was selected for debate, on which many hon. Members are anxious to speak.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: It would not have been necessary for any supporter of the Government to have continued the Debate after the speech made by the Prime Minister in reply to the Leaders of the Oppositions, but for the fact that the Leader of the Labour Opposition made a particularly vehement attack upon the group to which I belong, and it seems to me that there should be a brief answer to the views that he put forward. We quite understand his disappointment that the Government should have been changed without a change of policy and without a change in its national complexion. We understand, of course, that he wishes to return to pure party politics. He realises perfectly well that the chances of his party returning to office will be very much increased if he can dissociate from the Conservative party those representatives of Liberalism and Labour who in 1931 supported the combined forces. Naturally, he wishes to pretend that the present Government is a purely Conservative one in order that he may get back to that ancient conflict on party lines through which he hopes to return to office. That is a perfectly plain and lucid manoeuvre that we can understand, but
I do regret that in the course of his speech he descended to an insinuation that was really unworthy of one who has the affection of the whole House.
He talked of corruption, and in association with corruption he mentioned specifically the fact that the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for the Colonies were now in receipt of £2,000 and £5,000 respectively, whereas before they were in receipt of £5,000 and, I think, £1,200. He tried in connection with the argument about corruption to insinuate that there was something ignoble about this change, and that it was a device that had been prompted by sordid if not corrupt motives. That may be believed in the party opposite; if so it really shows a depth of misunderstanding of character and of motive that I should certainly not have expected from the Leader of the Opposition.
We have known the Secretary of State for the Colonies as a member of the party opposite and of the present combination. He had a creditable opening to his political career in the Labour Parliament of 1929–31. He has distinguished himself in office, and the whole House knows that if there was a young member of the Government who deserved promotion it was the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Whether in this House or in travels in the Dominions or at Ottawa, he has made his mark both by lucidity of thought and by his great capacity of getting on with those with whom he has to negotiate. His promotion I have always believed was retarded by his relationship with his father. Had he been purely on his own legs, with the initial start which his association with his father gave him, he would have been in his present position earlier rather than later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is a question of the judgment of personality. That hon. Members opposite should regard that transaction as an instance of corruption and that the Leader of the Opposition should lend his great weight to making a charge of that kind, which will be echoed in his own Press in the country, is something of a degradation of our political life.
Let me turn from that rather unsavoury subject to the question whether we desire to get back to party politics, whether the Prime Minister was justified in continuing the national character of the Government,
and whether or not it is a sham. There is no one who can pretend that the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs are not as competent representatives of Labour thought as anyone in this country. My earliest recollection of my right hon. Friend goes back to the last century at a meeting in Toynbee Hall, when I listened to him urging the necessity of creating A Labour party; a Labour party not then begun but just in its beginnings. He was more than anyone else the architect of the Labour party in those days, and what he does not know about Labour thought is not worth knowing. Does anyone deny that the Secretary of State for the Dominions in his time has done as much valuable work for the trade union movement as any person living? He toiled long and successfully for his railway men, and his work for them, I will not say is the greatest, but is as great as any you can find in the history of the trade union movement. What he, too, does not know about trade unions is not worth knowing.
There is an advantage in this national co-operation, the bringing together of different points of view, which you could not get in a purely Conservative Government. Only the other day the Leader of the Opposition was complaining that one of the Measures which the Government were bringing forward was a purely Labour measure—the Bill dealing with the extension of transport around London. He accused us of having stolen Labour clothes. He knows, as do all Members of the House, that in the legislation of the late Government there has been a supply of thought from each of its sections which has built up the sum of its legislation and administration. There has been a community of purpose and a co-operation of ideas. This will continue in the new Government. No doubt the time may come when we can fruitfully get back to pure party politics. I have had some experience of party Governments and of coalitions. I entered the House in 1910 as a devoted servant of the Liberal Government. During the War we had a Coalition. I know something of the strength and weaknesses of the two forms of Government. Party Government, no doubt, brings issues into clarity and makes for lucidity of policy. Co-operation means far fewer words and much more action. We saw that during
the War, when great measures of statesmanship were passed by a Coalition Government which would have taken years of party fighting to secure. We had women's franchise, adult suffrage and the great Education Act of 1918. In the past four years we have seen an equally magnificent crop of legislation resulting from co-operative effort. The time may come, as I have said, when we can fruitfully return to party politics, but we who belong to the National Labour party are conscious of representing what we represented in 1931, a large body of persons who are not highly organised but who are determined to do their best to continue this co-operative effort as long as it is for the good of the country.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) into all the points he has raised. He has told us that he has been since 1910 in various governments, national, coalition and party. He was a colleague of mine from 1929 to 1031. The difference between the hon. Member and myself is this. I have been attached to one party for the last 20 years, the Labour party, and when this National Government has finished, the hon. Member for Central Leeds will try to find a place in the new Government which will get into power. I remember another organisation, somewhat similar to the National Labour party, an organisation called the British Workers' League, formed shortly after the War to support the Coalition. In 1918 certain members of the British Workers' League were in this House, rather more in numbers than the numbers in the National Labour party now. Most of them were disgruntled with the trade union movement, they had not the confidence of the people in the trade unions and they joined the British Workers' League because it had some money at its disposal. Before 1922 I said that none of them would come back at the next election, and none of them did.
I give the hon. Member for Central Leeds a word of warning. In the evolution of politics that will occur again, I tell him quite frankly that if I know the psychology of the Labour party he will find no resting-place there whatever may happen in Central Leeds. I do not
blame the hon. Member for his adherence to the National Labour party. I remember the crisis of 1931 and the particular Sunday when the National Government was formed. Like many more loyal members of the Labour party, I gave the situation very serious consideration before making up my mind what to do. After considering all the pros and cons, I decided to remain with the party with which I had been associated since I was 21 years of age. I do not regret it.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: Was that after the hon. Member had been to Transport House?

Mr. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Member is talking through his hat. I had been a Member of the House since 1922 representing Pontefract in three Parliaments. Up to that time I had never been near Transport House in my life, and whether the hon. and gallant Member believes it or not, I as a miners' representative have never been dictated to by Transport House or by the Miners' Federation. I am a member of the Miners' Federation and the Labour party and I pay them this tribute, that neither of them has ever attempted to dictate to me what I should do. I make up my mind as to what I should do, as I did in 1931. Like the hon. Member for Central Leeds I recognised in 1931 that there was a crisis, but I disagreed with the Lord President of the Council and sided with the Labour party. I was defeated in 1931. I fought as clean a fight in that election as any hon. Member. I faced the issue. I would rather fight and lose for what I believe to be right than win and give away what I know to be the right thing. The hon. Member for Central Leeds chose his own way, and he has a perfect right to do so.
The hon. Member made some reference to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about corruption. I am sorry that the Lord President of the Council is not at the moment in his place, because I have a reluctance to say behind his back what I want to say to his face. I should like him to hear what I have to say. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to his association with the Poor Law in Bow and Bromley, and said that his opponents; used to charge him and his colleagues with being too generous to the poor people who came
before them, and rather suggested that it was a bribe to the electors which should be regarded as a kind of corruption. I had 10 years in Poor Law administration as the youngest man in public life in Sheffield. I went on to the Sheffield Board of Guardians completely ignorant of the administration of the Poor Law, but I went there believing that I could do some good for poor people. I was in a minority. The happiest days of my public life were when I was one out of 30. I could hold my own party meeting and pass my own resolutions. One of the chief things which used to be said against me was that I rather allowed my heart to run away with me in deciding what should be given to applicants, and that I paid too little regard to the ratepayers' interests.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in trying to show that we were charged with giving bribes to the electors illustrated the point by referring to what had occurred in the case of the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have sat at the feet of the Lord President of the Council. In my early days I saturated myself with almost everything he said and wrote. I remember taking the collection on more than one occasion when there was not sufficient to pay his travelling expenses and having to put my last shilling in the bag. I had a great respect for what the Lord President wrote and preached. I remember a phrase which he used on one occasion, which did me more good than anything else that I I have heard or read. It was in the days when Victor Grayson was rather prominent, and the Lord President coming to Attercliffe on one occasion told us young people that what we had to do was to build ourselves in the Labour party on the model and pattern of its principles. He urged us to frame our conduct through life on a fairly high plane, and as a raw youth, with a mind capable of taking in impressions, I learned a good deal from what the right hon. Gentleman then told us. In my public life I have tried to carry out what I then more or less subconsciously took in. I have always tried to conduct myself so that nobody could charge me in my public life with using my position as an elected representative to benefit myself as an individual or the members of my family.
It seems rather strange that here you have the late Prime Minister relinquishing that office and taking up a post with a smaller salary, and allowing his son, however able he may be, to rise from the position of an Under-Secretary to the Colonial Secretaryship. I want to address a few words to the Prime Minister. There is one thing I like about the right hon. Gentleman. If he makes a mistake he is the first to correct it. He tries to speak as much as possible with strict accuracy and from his heart. The right hon. Gentleman told us it was his duty as Prime Minister to select certain people for certain posts. The right hon. Gentlement has one pet phrase—that rumour is usually a lying jade. It is rather remarkable, and it may be unpalatable to some, that days before, the new Cabinet was announced there were insistent rumours in this House that one of the prices that the late Prime Minister was going to demand in the reconstruction of the Government was a post for his son.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not true.

Mr. SMITH: Days before the reconstruction took place that rumour was insistent. There are hon. Members in this House who would not deny that many of them said to me, what did I think about the rumour of So-and-So being made Secretary of State for the Colonies? What my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) had in mind was not so much corruption in its ordinary definition, but the mere fact that here you have a Prime Minister coming down from Prime Minister to Lord President, and his son going up. It leaves rather a nasty taste with the electors outside.

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no truth at all in that rumour. One thing that I confess I do not understand is this: The hon. Member speaks as though the one post was higher than the other. Of course, theoretically all Cabinet posts are equal, but after that of the Prime Minister the Lord President's post is the highest post in this country. It is a post that I took with great pride. It is a most dignified position, and a long way above a mere Secretaryship of State.

Mr. SMITH: I am not disputing that. I know the Prime Minister well enough to realise that he would take pride in
any post that he had, whether lowly paid or highly paid, and I go further and say that he tried to make the best of his post as Lord President. But I think he is a little bit prouder in being Prime Minister now than he was before. Whether rightly or wrongly, people outside think it is a little humiliating for the late Prime Minister to leave that post and to become Lord President. But my point is that rumour, however she may lie, spoke with a good deal of truth on that occasion. Some of the rumours for three or four days before the new names were known turned out to be remarkably accurate. It may be that we have some skilled prophets in this House. The only thing that I am trying to emphasise is this: The mere fact that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has become a Cabinet Minister has left a rather bad taste with large numbers of the electors. I am the last person in the world to try to discuss the abilities of the new Secretary for the Colonies. I have my own opinion about him, but perhaps this is not the place to express it. I do say, however, because I believe it, that there is a belief on this side that the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for the Colonies would not have been in that post were he not the son of his father. Whether hon. Members opposite agree with that statement or not I do not know, but I believe it is true. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies cares to consult the miners in Bassetlaw he will find that I am interpreting quite rightly what their opinion is.
With regard to the Ministers without Portfolio, there are one or two things that need to be said. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman who is Minister for League of Nations Affairs, whatever my party may think I hold that that is a post which ought to have been created long ago. The manifold duties affecting foreign affairs and League of Nations affairs demand the entire thought and concentration of someone, and I think the Prime Minister was quite right in that respect. But when we come to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings Lord E. Percy), is it not rather astonishing how things change? The Prime Minister, as he usually does, paid a very fine tribute to a colleague. He talked
about the ability and clarity of thought of the Noble Lord. I remember the Noble Lord a few weeks ago making a most vicious and vile speech on Ministers, making a most vicious criticism of the Government and using words that are not in my vocabulary. There was not much clarity of thought in that, though there may have been a good deal of sound tactics in it. It was a most vicious attack on the Government. And then when rumour said that the Noble Lord was likely to have a post in the reconstructed Government he changed the tone of his speeches. I can suggest no better punishment for the Noble Lord during the Recess than that he should read and contrast his speeches and reflect on them. When the Noble Lord knew that he was going to be in the Government he altered his tactics, or his speeches rather suggested that.
My experience in Standing Committees is that the only way to get concessions from the Government is to attack them. If you change your tone and apologise afterwards that is another thing. As long as you are a loyal supporter of the Government you get nothing, but if you come to play with the team and then "rat" they will go out of the way to make concessions to you. While I think the Prime Minister's action is justified in the case of the appointment of a Minister to deal with League of Nations affairs, we are doubtful as to whether the other Minister without Portfolio is necessary. As to whether he has to work two hours a day or not I am not concerned, because I recognise that it is not the man who works hardest and longest who always gets the best results. It may be that in a post where there is not much administrative work to do, or work for only an hour or two a day, you may have a man who by sheer concentration and because he is not submerged in administrative difficulties can turn his mind into channels that will be beneficial to the Government which he supports. On the whole I contend that two or three of these positions are unwarranted. I think the duties could have been carried out by other Ministers who have little to do, and that the salaries could have been saved. The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly justified in what he said, and he need not apologise for anything that he has said.

5.38 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am sure the Committee will not expect me to enter into the controversy between the two last speakers upon the history of various personalities and movements in the Labour party. In my detached position the less said about that by me the better. With regard to the other matters mentioned in the Debate, as far as I am personally concerned I feel quite certain that the Prime Minister would not have appointed the present Secretary of State for the Colonies unless he believed him to be entirely competent and equipped with the necessary ability and energy for the post. With reference to the post which has been created again, that of Minister without Portfolio, to which the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has been appointed, I wish to take this, the very first opportunity that is afforded to any of his friends, to say that I am sure that the views he expressed in this House were never in the slightest degree affected either by the hope of appointment or the fear of criticism. The Noble Lord is one of the most sincere men I know, and I am perfectly certain that he would not descend to any such tactics.
But I have no reason to take part in that controversy. Indeed I should not have risen to speak but for a remark made by the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend referred to the inequality of the salaries of various Ministers. He mentioned particularly the cases of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour; but he entirely omitted to mention a much more flagrant case than either of those. I refer to the case of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This office was converted from an ordinary Ministry into that of a Secretary of State at a time when everyone supposed that the salary would ultimately be made commensurate with the high dignity of the title. There is not one of us who did not imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland would get the salary of £5,000 a year which is given to the most important Ministries.

Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords' Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Finance Act, 1935.
2. Counterfeit Currency (Convention) Act, 1935.
3. Defence (Barracks) Act, 1935.
4. London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Act, 1935.
5. Glasgow Corporation Sewage Order Confirmation Act, 1935.
6. Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1935.
7. London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1935.
8. Sheffield Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1935.
9. Portsmouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1935.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Guildford) Act, 1935.
11. London and North Eastern Railway Act, 1935.
12. South Essex Waterworks Act, 1935.
13. Southern Railway Act, 1935.
14. Rhyl Urban District Council Act, 1935.
15. West Hampshire Water Act, 1935.
16. City of London (St. Paul's Cathedral Preservation) Act, 1935.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £200,532, be granted for the said Service."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to resume his speech, I am bound to warn him that an alteration of the specific salary which he was raising would require legislation. On the general question I think he is in order, but it would not be in order on this occasion to raise the question of increasing the salary paid to a specific Minister.

5.55 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I am obliged to you, Captain Bourne, for that intimation. I
had not intended to make any specific suggestion on the lines suggested. When the House proceeded to attend in another place I was dealing with the case of the Secretary of State for Scotland as a matter of analogy, and not with a view to suggesting that any specific salary should attach to that office. I was just reminding the Committee of the situation which exists with regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When the increased dignity of a Secretaryship of State was attached to that office, which had previously been an ordinary Secretaryship, we all anticipated that the salary would be made commensurate with the dignity of the office. We realised that, at the moment when the change was made, conditions were not suitable for increasing charges upon the State and that no alteration in the salary was likely then to be made. But we believed that as soon as the situation had eased sufficiently for the State to consider increases of salary, the first office to be recognised in that respect would be that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not suppose anyone imagines that it is enough to suppress the grievance of a Scotsman to give him an extra dignity when no money goes with the increased importance of the office, and in Scotland we always understand it to be the case that the salary indicates the grade of the post.
Probably English Members of the Committee do not realise the extent and importance of the functions of this office. It is not merely a case of running one office or presiding over one department. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a series of departments under his charge. To begin with, he is Home Secretary and has to perform very exacting duties in that capacity. My native country is not entirely serene and tranquil at all times in regard to such matters as give trouble to the police. In addition, the Secretary of State is Minister of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Prime Minister mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture in England as one which was worthy of a higher salary than is being accorded to it at the present time. Furthermore, in addition to being Home Secretary and Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State is also Minister of Health and any one who knows the obligations attaching to that office must
realise that it takes up a very large portion of his time. He is also Minister of Education. Education is a topic in which Scottish people take a most intense interest, and Scottish representatives pay close attention, both by questions and by expressions of opinion in this House, to the manner in which the duties of that office are being carried out.
I venture to say, on behalf, as I think I can, of all the Scottish Members, that we regard this situation as intolerable. It has been made more intolerable today. We might have gone through a further process of time in which, being naturally of a modest character, we might not have made too much trouble, but when we find supernumerary Ministers getting £3,000 a year, then undoubtedly Scotland will feel extremely irritated with regard to the position in which Scotland is put, and I am very glad to think that the Prime Minister has indicated that, at least in the case of these other Ministries, some levelling up ought to be done within no remote period of time. If higher salaries are to be given to the Ministers of Labour and Agriculture, I think the case of Scotland is infinitely stronger than either of these, and I hope the Prime Minister will reassure us upon this matter. I hope he will tell us that his omission of the case of the Secretaryship of State for Scotland was merely an omission and was not intentional or deliberate, and that it will have at least as good consideration as these other offices. We think it ought to have better.
I am sure my right hon. Friend will be ready to give us that assurance, because indeed those who observe the local Press in Scotland are very well aware that there is a considerable amount of grievance expressed in Scotland at present that their affairs are not receiving sufficient attention, and one of the things which not only irks them in their daily life but hurts their pride is the fact that the Secretaryship of State should be regarded as an inferior office with a salary of nothing more than is paid to a certain number of Under-Secretaries. That is a condition which ought not to be allowed to continue, and I beg the Prime Minister, who, I am sure, must be sympathetic upon this matter, to give us the assurance of his most earnest attention to it.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: This has been an interesting Debate upon an interesting, if distressing, subject. The Government have recently been having discussions with another right hon. Gentleman on the question of a New Deal, and they wanted themselves to have a new shuffle. Although the cards have been changed, however, they are all from the same three packs, and, as a French proverb has it, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." There is another proverb which says that you ought not to swap horses when you are crossing a stream. It seems to me that that is what the Government are doing in approaching the election. Anyhow, they have swapped leaders. The late Prime Minister has become Lord President of the Council, and now, instead of, in the words of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), gazing at his reflection in the broken mirrors of Europe, he is now surveying his past career in the broken looking-glass of his lost ideals. I will not say that King Log has succeeded King Stork, but King Log has certainly succeeded King Peacock.
As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, for a long time he has been doing the work of a Prime Minister on a very inadequate salary. He is now continuing to do the work on the full salary attached to that post and honesty compels us to congratulate him, if not the country, on the result. There has been a change in the Home Office. The late Home Secretary, having militarised the police against their will, has taken his armament shares to a back bench and has been succeeded by the late Foreign Secretary, who, having spilt the milk all over Europe, is now engaged in answering questions about little boys stealing milk cans in the City of Oxford, a very sad and melancholy end to a once promising career. I am very sorry, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has been deprived by the domestic arrangements of another family of the opportunity of inhabiting the house in Downing Street, upon which he had set his eye, and, owing to the well known assiduity of the Prime Minister, who comes here day after day, he cannot exercise the opportunity of being Deputy-Leader of this House.
There have been one or two other changes besides. The Secretary of State
for the Colonies, for example, has been mentioned. I have no personal criticism to make upon that particular appointment. If I had any, it would be of a political character. I did not have any objection at all, when the Government were first formed, to the right hon. Gentleman being made Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I think parental solicitude is entitled to see that a member of the family should have one foot on a rung of the ladder, but I think it is carrying it too far to say that he must go right to the top. I prefer the precedent of King Edward III at the Battle of Crecy, when he said, "Let the youngster win his spurs." I was rather sorry that, as a result of these changes, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey, a great friend of the miners, had to go and to be replaced by the author of the Trade Disputes Act.
Then we have the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Muddlers may come and muddlers may go, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to go on for ever. During the period of his office Newfoundland has gone bankrupt, Ireland has been ostracised, and Australia has been allowed to win the Test Matches, but in order that the rest of the Empire may be preserved, the Government have given the right hon. Gentleman the assistance of the scion of a noble house and the descendant of a long line of statesmen. I am sure his Under-Secretary, in the many conversations which he will have with his chief, will anyhow enrich his vocabulary, especially on the adjectival side. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to haul down his flag at the end of this Parliament. I am sorry that before doing so he should have dipped his ensign to Germany and given the German naval authorities their revenge over Jutland. As for the Foreign Secretary, words absolutely fail me. I am sorry he is not in his place. I once said of the late Foreign Secretary that he was the worst Foreign Secretary since the days of Ethelred the Unready, but when I contemplate his successor, I almost wish he were back again in that particular office, for in the course of but three weeks the present Foreign Secretary has broken the Stresa front, very nearly wrecked the League of Nations, and seems to have preferred Herr Hitler to British honour.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better discuss that to-morrow.

Mr. COCKS: Finally, I want to say something about the Minister without Portfolio. We all know the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). We have listened very humbly to his lectures and admired his omniscience. We all know, of course, why he is in the Cabinet. It is for one reason, and one reason only—to tell all the other Cabinet Ministers where they are wrong and what mediocrities they are. I notice in the paper to-day that, as he has now taken on the work of being schoolmaster to the Cabinet, he has decided to resign the Presidency of the Royal Society of Teachers. As for the National Government as a whole, they remind me of one of the features of our social life that has long, I am afraid, passed away. We remember those pictures of a Bank holiday, with a number of 'Arrys and 'Arriets walking or reeling down the street, arm in arm with each other and wearing each other's hats. That is what the National Government are doing at the present time. They are reeling down the street to the general election, and when that takes place I trust the great genius of our race, which has looked after us in so many troubles, will see that for them at least there is no resurrection.

6.10 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I wish to express, on my own behalf, and I believe I speak for a large number of other Members, our satisfaction at the assurance given by the Prime Minister this afternoon that the office of Minister for League of Nations Affairs, with a travelling commission to visit on behalf of the Foreign Office the capitals of Europe, is only a temporary appointment, and when I say that I desire to emphasise, as did the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), that it is not because I have any fear of the ability or the personality of the right hon. Gentleman. I consider that he is one of the ablest Members of the Cabinet, but many of us have felt for a long time past that negotiations with foreign Powers are very much better carried out by the trained Ambassadors accredited to the various countries. They are the men on the spot. They know the idosyncrasies of the people with whom they have to deal, and
they do their job very much better than any Minister, however able he may be.
We have recently seen a striking example of this. As I say, it is no reflection on the present Minister for League of Nations Affairs, but we know that he was sent by the Cabinet to tell the Prime Minister of Italy that Great Britain would be prepared to give up a portion of Somaliland if this would be of assistance in the settlement of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. We all know what was the result, that it was refused almost with scorn by Italy, and that it has created apprehensions in and been considered undesirable by France. In fact, there is a practically united feeling that it was a very stupid thing to have done. If there had not been this peripatetic commission of Ministers going abroad, it would not have happened.
Surely the proper course would have been, if the Cabinet thought well to make such a proposal, to get our experienced Minister in Rome, Sir Eric Drummond, to have brought this proposal to the attention of the Italian Government. If it had not been acceptable, as it has proved not acceptable, nobody would have heard anything about it. On the other hand, if, as the Cabinet thought it might have been, it had been accepted, what a coup for the Cabinet, which could then have come forward and said, "We propose to ask the approval of the House of Commons in due course to what we have suggested to the Italian Government, namely, that a small piece of barren land should be handed over to the Abyssinian Government, and this will settle the dispute between Abyssinia and Italy." If it had not been accepted, it would have had no publicity, and the Government could have retired from the position gracefully and without loss of prestige, but when they send a Cabinet Minister and it is heralded in every capital of Europe that he is going to do this and that, if he does not do it, it reflects very adversely, not only on the Government, but on the country as a whole. I thank the Prime Minister for giving the assurance to the House and to the country that this is only a temporary appointment, and that there is in future to be no permanent Minister for League of Nations Affairs who will be continually travelling abroad. We hope that means that the foreign
affairs of this country will be conducted by those who conducted them very satisfactorily in the past, namely, the Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to the various countries.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but I feel impelled to do so by the very unfair attacks that have been made on the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have spoken to him only once or twice during my Parliamentary career, but I have watched him very closely, and I consider that if any man is worthy of promotion he is the Secretary for the Colonies. I have heard him on several occasions, in important Debates, and he has shown great ability and a great knowledge of the facts which he has been able to present in a masterly way. We remember his visit to Australia last year, when he did valuable service for the British Government and helped considerably to clear away difficulties and misunderstandings which had arisen. Everyone will agree that he acquitted himself admirably on that occasion. It seems to me that the criticism that has been directed against him is uncalled for. I can understand the bitterness which has emanated once more from the Opposition benches in regard to the Lord President of the Council, but I was hoping that after nearly four years some of the venom which existed earlier in this Parliament would have disappeared. It has not done so, however, and I object to the sins of the father being visited on the child.
The fact that the Secretary for the Colonies is the son of his father should not be put up against him. The father may be criticised, and he has been unfairly criticised this afternoon, but I do not think that heredity should be a bar to promotion. That is the position taken up by the Opposition. I once heard—and I think there is a great deal of truth in it—that in the old days Mr. Gladstone was too punctilious in regard to helping any relatives in connection with Parliamentary work. I was told that Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who was in the House for many years and was a most able man—as I know personally—was kept in a very low position simply because his father was so punctilious about appointing any relatives to office. I think that he carried it too far, and I am glad
that the Prime Minister to-day has risen above that and has made this promotion, which I believe is justified. One of the criticisms of the remodelled Government is that it is too old, but here is an attempt to put in a man who is young in outlook and who yet has considerable experience. That is a good step and will strengthen the Cabinet instead of weakening it, as hon. Members in the Opposition have suggested.

6.19 p.m.

Sir ROBERT SMITH: I want to refer to the point which was forcefully put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) with regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He referred to the fact that the Secretary of State is Minister of Agriculture as well as of other Departments in Scotland. He did not mention the fact, which the Government ought to consider, that in Scotland the Secretary of State is the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, a position which no Minister in England holds. Therefore, it is important that he should have a salary commensurate with his office.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I would like, as one of the new younger Members of the House, to say how much I agree with what the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) said about the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has had opportunities which do not come the way of many young men. Whether that be so or not it is certain that he has made the most of those opportunities, and anyone who has watched his work in the House is only too glad, even if influence has had something to do with it—and it is nothing to be ashamed of, if it has—to see him worthy of having influence exercised on his behalf. We hope that other men may also be found to serve their country at a younger age than is usual in politics. Some of us, and I believe the country, feel very strongly that the process of rejuvenating the Cabinet has not gone nearly far enough. Let us, at any rate, be grateful for a beginning. Possibly in future a Prime Minister even more daring than the right hon. Gentleman who holds that office to-day may introduce more younger men into the Cabinet. Let us, however, be thankful for the mercies we have received. Of one thing I am
certain—and I say this with no disrespect to hon. Members opposite—that no one on their benches has shown greater ability than the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We all, without churlishness, are glad to see his elevation to the Cabinet and hope that it presages the great changes in the Government to which the country is looking forward at some future date.
The appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is a most interesting appointment, with which I am sure the Committee will agree, perhaps even more for the sake of the appointment than for the sake of the man, although for the sake of both. It is essential that, with unemployment at the figure it is now, we should have a forward and constructive policy. Some of us have been trying in our small way to urge such a policy forward. There have been a few disappointments, but we shall go on persevering. Some of us who have been doing that felt in an embarrassed situation yesterday. On the one hand, it was impossible for us to feel the slightest enthusiasm for the party opposite, which was the cause of unemployment having risen from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000. We were certainly not going to do anything to get rid of Charles the Second to make James the Second King—and I pay James the Second a very poor compliment when I make that comparison. On the other hand, we like to feel that we support our own side, not because it is far better than the opposite side, but because it is the Government which comes nearest the ideal Government which we have in our minds. The Government were able to show yesterday beyond challenge that they have succeeded in placing the finances of this country upon a solid basis. Without such a solid basis constructive reform is impossible, and it is because hon. Members opposite—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that the hon. Member had better get back to the subject of the Vote.

Mr. BAILEY: I at once accept your Ruling. I am afraid that I was arguing at greater length on the subject than was perhaps justified. We hope that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings means that, at any rate, one Minister of the greatest
ability will present to the Government new ideas for dealing with the problems of unemployment. We must have new ideas, or we shall have that problem with us for a great many years. In Lancashire there is a great exporting industry in distress, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings to devote himself, not to presenting new legislation, but to presenting a report as to what he thinks would be the best way of dealing with the situation in the cotton industry. If we allow it to drift, if we allow anarchy to go on from bad to worse, there will be no hope for that industry. Many of us feel very strongly on the question of the aged men in industry, and think that men should be retired at an earlier age.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That would require legislation.

Mr. BAILEY: I am not suggesting legislation, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to present a report on the subject. I hope that the importance of the subject and the lack of opportunities for private Members to raise these points will be my excuse for going outside the Rules of Order. When we see the suffering of our constituents we sometimes feel that there is something more important than points of order in this human problem. I say that without the slightest disrespect to the Chair. I say it as a justification for having possibly gone a little further than one would have gone had one had opportunities of putting this matter forward when it would have been in order. The Government have done much. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings has done much. All we hope is that they will bring in new men and will not be afraid of pursuing a policy because some people label it Socialistic; and that in every direction they will go forward to make a real effort on new lines to grapple with unemployment. If they do that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings as a Minister to inquire into a solution of this problem will have been justified a thousandfold.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I know the Committee is anxious to take a Vote, and I do not intend to keep it more than a few minutes. I would not have occupied those few minutes but for the hon. Member
who has just spoken. He tells us that this is the best Government, and then proceeds to thank Heaven for the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and then to threaten the Prime Minister that, unless there is another infiltration of youth into the Cabinet, it will mean death and glory for this country. The Prime Minister ought to take note of the fact that the hon. Member is not yet an old man, and that if he is anxious for further youthful recruits the hon. Member is apparently awaiting his opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rendered a signal service this afternoon when he introduced this Debate. It was not, as the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) and the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) seemed to imply, with the object of attacking any individuals. My right hon. Friend was anxious to make an attack on an innovation which he explained so clearly as not to require further words from me.
The Prime Minister this afternoon did not so much laud the ability of one Minister or another as tell the Committee for the first time the real truth about the make-up of the present Government. He said, in effect, that this was not a ministry of ability but a ministry of proportions, and we ought to characterise it as such for all times. He said that in view of what happened in 1931, and the magnificent political services rendered to the Tory party by certain Members of the so-called National Labour party, they were entitled to so many ministerial posts, and like the honest Member he is the Prime Minister persists in maintaining the proportions that obtained in 1931. There he admits that this is not a ministry of ability but a ministry based upon proportions and fragments of parties.
That leads to the next stage, the reshuffle. Dealing with the Minister for League of Nations Affairs the Prime Minister told us that he had been anxious for a long time to make arrangements to meet the new set of circumstances that had arisen, his object being to obtain the best ministerial team to deal with foreign affairs. That does not pay the late Foreign Secretary a very great compliment, because by implication he has been deposed so that we may have the best foreign affairs team. Although the
Prime Minister declared that he would not explain why he made this or that appointment, he did by implication inform us that certain Ministers had been deposed or transferred from one office to another, and we must wait and see whether the weekday Foreign Secretary and the Sunday Minister for League of Nations Affairs will unite their efforts so as to obtain the maximum results. So far, I am afraid that they have been a very signal failure.
The next point the Prime Minister brought out in his statement was that this ministry of proportions are so lacking in all-round ability that they must have one or two Ministers without portfolio to help them with their thinking. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings is to have an open sesame. He must look at all the social problems, the unemployment problem and the allied problems. He has really become the minister of the universe. As my hon. Friend for one of the Nottingham Divisions said, he is there to tell the other Ministers when they are wrong. While the Ministry as a whole do more work than in the past, there are more Ministers to deal with the various problems confronting them, but it is an open confession that Ministers are incapable of dealing with their individual jobs when one or two Ministers without portfolio have to be appointed to scour the universe and do what ordinary Ministers are not excepted to do.
But this is consistent with the very origin of the Government. All hon. Members know the origin of this Government. It was a scramble in the early stages. It was a Government of elements which had agreed to disagree. They disagreed and they agreed for a period, until Ottawa came along, when there were certain Liberal defections. Then there were certain National Liberal scrambles for office, and the ministry of proportions has been continued ever since. The hon. Member for Gorton said a moment ago that the Government had satisfied the House yesterday that they had stabilised the foundations of this country and almost solved every problem, but then he proceeded to show that the depression, the decay and the demoralisation in all parts of the country have become more or less stabilised since this ministry of proportions has been in office during the last four years. I think my
right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rendered a signal service to-day. He has pointed to the real defect of the Government, which is that it was not appointed on the basis of ability but in such a manner as to give certain Ministerial offices to certain fragments of political parties which had rendered certain services to the Conservative party in 1931.
In conclusion, I would say one word to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). He never loses an opportunity of attacking hon. Members on these benches, but there is one thing he cannot say of us. He has never been able to charge us with the inconsistency which, according to his own confession, has characterised his last 25 years of political life. He was in the Liberal party, he told us, went into the Coalition party, came into the Socialist party, went to the National Labour party, and if the Tory party are in office after the next election he will be there, if he

happens to be returned to the House. I have heard the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) chastised for changing his party allegiance, but he has always been wise, because whenever he has changed he has sat on the Treasury Bench. He is not there now, but, as he knows, it requires an exception to prove the rule. The hon. Member for Central Leeds has not had that success. His political acrobatics have not done him a lot of credit, and every time he attacks Members sitting on these benches we can well afford to listen to him, because he represents nothing and nobody, and is only here in a temporary fashion, and I am looking forward to the day when Central Leeds will return to sanity and turn him out.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £200,532, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 220.

Division No. 267.]
AYES.
[6.38 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cleary, J. J.
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Healy, Cahir
Rea, Sir Walter


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, BarnettSmith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Bann)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Paling.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.



NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cooper, A. Duff


Albery, Irving James
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Copeland, Ida


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Apsley, Lord
Burnett, John George
Craven-Ellis, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Butler, Richard Austen
Crooke, J. Smedley


Assheton, Ralph
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crossley, A. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Carver, Major William H.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bernays, Robert
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Doran, Edward


Blindell, James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Clarke, Frank
Drewe, Cedric


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eales, John Frederick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Eastwood, John Francis


Bracken, Brendan
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Edmondson, Major Sir James


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McKeag, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Goldie, Noel B.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Salt, Edward W.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Meyhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somerset, Thomas


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimstord)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hepworth, Joseph
Morgan, Robert H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Spens, William Patrick


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hornby, Frank
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Munro, Patrick
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stones, James


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strauss, Edward A.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
North, Edward T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nunn, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Iveagh, Countess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Summersby, Charles H.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peake, Osbert
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jennings, Roland
Pearson, William G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peat, Charles U.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Petherick, M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomson, Sir James D. W.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Potter, John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Kimball, Lawrence
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wise, Alfred R.


Lees-Jones, John
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Womersley, Sir Walter


Levy, Thomas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Worthington, Sir John


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)



Liewellin, Major John J.
Rickards, George WilliamTELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ropner, Colonel L.
Major George Davies and Dr.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Resbotham, Sir Thomas



Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Ross, Ronald D.
Morris-Jones.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

6.49 p.m.

Major MILNER: The Motion for the Adjournment has been moved in order that a discussion may take place as promised by the Government upon the
position created by the recent Privy Council decision, which made it clear that the Irish Free State have power to abrogate the Articles of Agreement between the two countries. I assume that the Government desire that the Debate should have the widest possible range, and I propose briefly to outline the position as I understand it, and to ask the Government what course they propose to adopt to put the present extremely unsatisfactory relations between the Irish Free State and this country on a better basis for the future. First, I would remind hon. Members of the position at the time that the Statute of Westminster was passed. The House will recollect that Section 2 of that Statute was in these terms:

"(1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion.
"(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of the Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion."

I imagine that most of us, reading those words, would be of opinion that the intention was to confer complete freedom of action on the Irish Free State as one of the co-equal Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that, at the time that Clause was under discussion, controversy arose as to whether, by reason of the Clause, the Articles of Agreement between the two countries, which admittedly up to that time could only have been altered by consent, could be amended, or action could be taken to abrogate the Treaty in any part, by action on the part of the Irish Free State Government alone. The Government at that time were told in express terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), of the possibilities which were raised, but, notwithstanding the warnings, the Government persisted in passing that Statute. Indeed, the Prime Minister said that he was advised by the Law Officers that the binding character of the Articles of Agreement between the two countries would not be altered by one jot or tittle by the passing of the Statute. The then Solicitor-General, the present Attorney-General, said that the Constitution could not be amended except in accord with the Treaty, and the present Solicitor-General, who was then making his maiden speech, said:
It is plain that if this Statute is passed it will be wholly wrong to say that the Irish Free State would have power to repeal
the Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1224, Vol. 259.]
The Privy Council have decided that the Treaty of Westminster gave to the Irish Free State the power under which they could abrogate the Treaty and that, as a matter of law, they did avail themselves of that power.
Naturally, the House desires to know what attitude the Government take to that decision and to the problems arising out of it, and what they are going to do about the present relations between the two countries. It is not the slightest good the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions, or the Attorney-General, coming here and talking about the morality of the position, the sanctity of agreements or contractual obligations. In regard to contractual obligations I would say that, as a principle of law, when one party to an agreement relieves the other of an obligation under that agreement, that other party is entitled to take advantage of that relief. I cannot put the position better than it was put in the Debate at the time by the hon. Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid). He said:
This Measure is going to be passed in this House by the authority of one of the parties which ratified the Treaty. That means to say that this House of Commons is going to give to the other parties to the Treaty an option to annul the Treaty. Can anybody say that if we give the other side an option to annul the Treaty and if the other side exercise that option they are breaking any moral obligation? It is open to the Dail without any breach of contract to exercise that option.
That is precisely, as I understand it, what they have done. The hon. Gentleman went on to give an instance:
Suppose the Solicitor-General made for the right hon. Gentleman a lease for 21 years, and that some time afterwards the right hon. Gentleman came to the Solicitor-General and said: 'I would like to have power to break the lease at seven or 14 years,' and the Solicitor-General said: 'Very well, I will agree and we will have a supplementary agreement to that effect.' Could anyone say, in those circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman was doing anything wrong in determining the lease at one or other of those periods? "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; cols. 1227–30, Vol. 259.]
In my submission the position was precisely the same when this Parliament voluntarily gave the Irish Free State, by the Statute of Westminster, the power which it then conferred. It is useless to
suggest, as may be suggested in this Debate, that the Treaty was not overruled by the Statute of Westminster. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions has admitted that. On 5th December, 1933, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, read a despatch from Mr. de Valera and his reply thereto, and the right hon. Gentleman in paragraph 5 of his reply said:
In conclusion I would state that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom feel that the free intercourse on equal terms with the other members of the British Commonwealth which the Irish Free State have enjoyed under the Treaty Settlement, culminating in the Statute of Westminster, is the surest proof of their freedom to work out their own destiny within the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1933; col. 1459, Vol. 283.]
I would call attention to the words:
His Majesty's Government … feel that the free intercourse … which the Irish Free State have enjoyed under the Treaty Settlement, culminating in the Statute of Westminster,
because they clearly convey that the right hon. Gentleman puts the Treaty and the Statute of Westminster together and says that the Treaty culminates, or is merged, in the Statute of Westminster; that the one, namely, the Treaty, was merely a step on the road to the other. How then can it be suggested, as may be suggested in the Debate, that there is, above the Statute of Westminster, a contractual, or, it may be said, a moral, obligation under the Treaty? The position is clear. We have willingly and voluntarily in this House, and, in my submission, properly, conferred certain powers upon the Irish Free State in common with all the other Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the decision of the Privy Council is the logical outcome of the Statute passed by this House. What are the Government proposing to do about the decision? Are they proposing to accept it, as I imagine they must do, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General appeared before the Privy Council, or are they going to raise the question of moral obligation or contractual obligation? What are they going to do? Is the dispute between the two countries going to drag on? Is there going to be this futile antagonism
between them year after year, or are the Government going to take some steps to put an end to the present situation? The record of the Government in this matter is one of the worst blots on what is in my opinion a pretty black escutcheon.
I submit that the Government have missed opportunity after opportunity of discussing the matter and coming to a friendly and amicable arrangement with the Free State Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I hope in a moment or two to give the House one or two instances of the opportunities which I think have presented themselves. Why have the Government been so intransigent in this matter? I do not know whether it is out of pure cussedness, or because of a refusal to face facts, or—as I think more likely—because they are in this matter standing on their dignity. If that should be so, I suggest that there ought to be no such thing as dignity in a family on a matter of this kind. This matter affects not only theoretical, or legal, or constitutional matters but the very lives and the welfare of the people and the trade and commerce which is so vital between these two countries. Indeed, one can contemplate even more serious issues than that.
I said that the Government had missed opportunities. The despatch from Mr. de Valera which I read was one of those opportunities. Mr. de Valera asked the Government to define their position, and the Government declined to make a statement as to their attitude in regard to the relationship between the two countries. It is perfectly true that on this as on other occasions the Secretary of State expressed a pious hope of friendly co-operation between the two countries, but he took no single step of any kind to take advantage of that opportunity to sit round a table or otherwise to discuss the admittedly difficult situation between the two countries. The opportunity was presented to him, and the right hon. Gentleman turned it down in terms. He flatly declined to give an answer to a plain question.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So that we know the plain question! The question put to me was: "What will you do in the event of my declaring a republic?" The hon. Member seems to have omitted that.
That was the question put to me, and I said that I refused to answer a hypothetical question. Is that not so?

Major MILNER: I do not think for one moment that it is so. I do not think I ought to take up time in detailing this matter, but I shall be glad to do so if necessary. The despatch from Mr. de Valera was a rather long one. In it he referred to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons, and he went on to say:
The experience of the last 12 years has made it abundantly evident that lasting friendship cannot be attained on the basis of the present relationship. The Government of the Irish Free State infer from your statement on the 14th instant that the British Government also now realise the evils of a forced association and have decided not to treat as a cause of war or other aggressive action a decision of the Irish people to sever their connection with the Commonwealth.
The whole point was whether they had freedom to do that or, indeed, to take any other action under the terms of the Statute of Westminster. The despatch continued:
This attitude of the British Government appears to the Government of the Irish Free State to be of such fundamental importance that it should be formulated in a direct and unequivocal statement. The Government of the Irish Free State would sincerely welcome such a statement. They believe that it would be the first step towards that free and friendly co-operation in matters of agreed common concern between Great Britain and Ireland which ought to exist between them.
If that was not an approach of Mr. de Valera to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, what else could it be, [Interruption.] If hon. Members will only read the despatch and the reply, which I will read in a moment, I think they will come to that conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman in his despatch said:
They [His Majesty's Government] cannot believe that the Irish Free State Government contemplate the final repudiation of their Treaty obligations in the manner suggested. …
That notwithstanding that it has been decided in law, as many people had previously thought, that they have that right. He went on to say:
… and consequently they do not feel called upon to say what attitude they would adopt in circumstances which they regard as purely hypothetical.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition:
'"We took our stand by simply saying that we could not enter into further negotiations with people who repudiated their existing obligations. That was the origin of the disturbance and the cause of the whole dispute.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
We have never closed the door, and I hope we never will, to a friendly settlement."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 5th December, 1933; cols. 1459 and 1460, Vol. 283.]
But he never opens the door and invites the Free State representatives in to discuss this or any other matter. That is the position. That was the opportunity which presented itself to the right hon. Gentleman to make an effort, at any rate, to put an end to the situation. We naturally desire to know, and I am sure the country desires to know, how long this attitude on the part of the Government is going to continue. There was a further opportunity within the last month or two. Mr. de Valera caused it to be known, or indeed made a statement, that the Irish Free State would certainly not permit their country to be used as the base of operations against this country by another country.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: The hon. Member has quoted the last statement of Mr. de Valera's. Will he also quote what Mr. de Valera said he would do to prevent a foreign nation using the various harbours in the ports of Southern Ireland?

Major MILNER: The hon. Member must permit me to make my own quotations. That statement of Mr. de Valera's presented a further opportunity for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman in this House expressed appreciation of what had been said, but one would have thought that after a statement like that had been volunteered the least he would have done in the circumstances existing between the two countries would be to take advantage of that opportunity to say: "Let us get round the table and talk about it and see if we cannot put the relationship between the two countries on better terms." These were two opportunities of which the Government failed entirely to take advantage.
We desire His Majesty's Government to state in plain terms their attitude to the Privy Council's decision and to say whether they accept it or not, and to say
what steps they propose to take to put an end to the present economic war and to the chronic aggravation of the position of thousands of His Majesty's subjects. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should awaken from his slumbers and recognise the position and that, to use an expression which will not be unfamiliar to him, he should put his cards on the table in this matter and invite the Irish Free State Government to a conference. I am convinced, and I am not without some little knowledge on this subject, that a frank and courageous effort on those lines would bring about a complete alteration in the present situation. It is not the slightest use the right hon. Gentleman and the Government standing on their dignity or on their real or imagined rights. That discussion, if it takes place, has to be between equals as any such discussion was intended to be by the House when the Statute of Westminster was passed. The right hon. Gentleman in his palmy days had some reputation as a negotiator. I hope he will forget that and that he will say plainly that if any such negotiations should take place the people of this country certainly, and I hope the Government, want to let bygones be bygones and wish to say frankly to the Irish Government: "What can we do with good will to improve the present situation?" If that frank and courageous course is adopted, I am sure it will have better results than any other course.
I would also like to ask this question. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster Bill made it clear that he recognised the critical situation which in certain circumstances might arise after the passing of the Bill and suggested that some form of inter-Imperial arbitral tribunal should be set up to deal with such difficulties as in fact have arisen and which may in future times arise between different parts of the British Commonwealth. Have the Government taken any steps to set up such a tribunal? Have they thought of taking any such steps, or do they now propose to take any such steps to set up a tribunal of that sort? One must remember that one of the difficulties between the Irish Free State and the present Government is a mere dispute as to the constitution of an arbitration tribunal.
The Government here insist that it should consist of Empire representatives, and the Irish Free State—

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I had better correct that at once—

Major MILNER: I should like to finish what I am saying. I shall not be long, and I shall be happy to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks if I am wrong. One of the difficulties between the two countries is on the matter of land annuities. There was a proposal for arbitration. As I understand it, the British Government desired that the tribunal should be partially or wholly of British or Empire constitution, whereas the Irish Free State Government desired it to be partially or wholly a tribunal formed of independent persons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foreign persons!"] Well, persons not necessarily members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are not the Dominions independent?

Major MILNER: Had the advice of my hon. and learned Friend been taken in that matter, I submit that many of the difficulties which exist between our two countries—or between the Governments of our two countries, for I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the peoples—would have been cleared away. I desire to ask the Government if they have taken, or are taking, or proposing to take any steps in this matter? We believe that the Government's present attitude and the attitude which it has adopted for the last three or four years towards the Irish Free State has been unreasonable, foolish and detrimental to the interests not only of this country but of the Empire as a whole, and we urge them to alter it before it is too late.

7.14 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: We have all listened with interest to the speech just delivered, and with regard to some part of the ground covered I confess that I am in complete agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), especially in that part of his speech where he described the events which transpired in this House during the passage of the Statute of Westminster Bill. But he
represented the matter, as I understood his speech, as if the Irish Free State was entirely in the right in all these transactions, that, in fact, the whole trouble was due to the action of the Government of this country, and that there was really nothing in dispute except the contumacious pride of the Secretary of State for the Dominions. That, I submit, is not the condition of affairs, and I would like to call the attention of the House to the real position. In my observations on the dealings of this country with Ireland, I do not propose to go further back than the days of the Treaty in 1922. It was then thought that a final settlement had been reached, and all the difficulties disposed of, in the Irish Constitution Act, and that the British nation would secure good relations with the Irish Free State and relief from the Irish problem in future. But in the Irish Constitution Act, which embodied the Treaty, there were certain reservations intended for the safety of this country and the protection of those of our fellow-citizens in the Free State who had hitherto supported the British Government. The Constitution set up was on the Canadian lines, and that was specially stated in the Treaty.
What happened? In 1925 Mr. Cosgrave's Government commenced the process of getting rid of the Treaty bit by bit. First, the Free State was absolved from Article 5 of the Treaty, and was relieved of its obligation to contribute to the National Debt—a concession made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and estimated by him to be worth £50,000,000, but estimated by the Finance Minister of the Free State to be a concession of £150,000,000. The next step was to set aside the decisions of the Privy Council by special Irish legislation. There were the cases of Butler and of the Performing Right Society, and there was the better known appeal of certain civil servants with respect to the pensions which were secured to them by the Treaty. In all of these cases the Irish Free State Government proceeded by special legislation to set on one side the decision of the Privy Council.
Then we come to the Statute of Westminster, in connection with which I will only mention that an Amendment was moved in this House which would, if
inserted in the Statute, have put the question of the Treaty and the agreement outside the legislative powers of the Irish Free State. We were assured, however, by the Law Officers that the Treaty was not affected by the Statute, and a letter from Mr. Cosgrave was read with great effect by the Dominions Secretary, in which Mr. Cosgrave stated that he proposed to adhere to the Treaty, and would look upon the carrying of such an Amendment as a blow to his Government. The House was persuaded, the Amendment was rejected by a very large majority, and a further Amendment was also rejected, to the effect that nothing in the Statute of Westminster should in any way damage or endanger the rights of British citizenship. Again we were assured by the Law Officers that the Treaty was not affected, and the House, which had only just been elected and contained a large number of Members of no Parliamentary or political experience, who quite readily accepted all these assurances without question, rejected the Amendment.
The Statute of Westminster Bill was passed in November, 1931, and within a very short period, namely, in January, 1932, as the result of a general election, Mr. Cosgrave's Government was overthrown, and all the assurances which he had given were rendered of no effect, because, after all, they were only personal assurances. They were not State documents, but were merely contained in a letter addressed to "My dear Prime Minister." Mr. Cosgrave had made considerable progress during his leadership of the Government of the Irish Free State, for he announced, on the 31st January, 1932, that the Treaty was scarcely recognisable as a result of alterations effected by Imperial Conferences and the Statute of Westminster.
Mr. de Valera's Government proceeded further to undermine the Treaty. Quite early Mr. de Valera asserted his right to dismiss the Governor-General, then Mr. McNeill, and to recommend to the Crown the appointment of Mr. Buckley, who was a shopkeeper from Maynooth and a man of no eminence or prominence in Irish political life. I would call attention to the fact that this was done over the head of the Dominions Office, because the Irish Free State Government claims direct access to the Crown, without going through the Government at Westminster.
The only rights that now remain to the Crown are apparently those in connection with the documents of representatives of the Irish Free State Government to foreign Governments and the signing of the Statutes of the Dail by the Governor-General.
Then came the question of the Oath of Allegiance. That was repealed, notwithstanding that it was secured, or intended to be secured, by Article 2 of the Treaty. The British Government at that time informed Mr. de Valera that they adhered absolutely to the view that the Oath was an integral part of the Treaty, and that, if the Treaty were thus set aside, they would enter into no further agreement with the Free State. Then came the question of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, which was abolished. The Bill abolishing the Senate has been passed by the Dail. It was preceded by a Bill to reduce the period for which the Senate had power to delay legislation from 18 months to three months, and, as the matter now stands, the smaller Bill having received the Royal Assent, the Bill to abolish the Senate is being held up under the delaying powers of the Senate. An Act was passed abolishing university representation, the reason being, of course, that university representatives do not support Mr. de Valera's Government in all the actions that it has taken. Then comes the question of British citizenship. The Dail has passed three Acts dealing with that matter, and the Irish Free State Nationality Code consists of these three Acts—the Nationality and Citizenship Act, the Aliens Act, and the Constitution (Amendment No. 26) Act. The effect of these three Acts is described by Mr. de Valera in these words:
I hope we have made ourselves quite clear on this question of British subjects. Under Irish law no Irish citizen will be a British subject when this Act is passed. If somebody else chooses to regard our citizens as his, we will take no cognisance whatsoever of it so far as our law and legal system are concerned.
It is agreed by everyone who has examined these Acts that that is their effect.
At the same time persons previously resident in the Irish Free State—for instance the large number of Irish citizens settled in Great Britain—became liable to certain conditions if they should return to their own country. Provisions were
inserted in the last of these Acts to the effect that the statutory claim to Irish citizenship would have to be ascertained before a commission. That means that every case will have to be examined carefully, involving interminable delay, and it will depend upon the will of officials of the Irish Free State whether any particular man or woman will be held to have established their claim.
I should add that the last Amendment made by Mr. de Valera's Government was to the effect that the operation of the Statute might be held up or delayed by an Order of the Government. Such an Order has been issued by the Irish Government, so that the effect of these Acts is at present suspended, but, if it should be the will of the Government at any moment to withdraw that Order, the Statutes will come into operation and any British subject going into Ireland will either have to establish a claim to Irish citizenship or will be treated as an alien, in which case he will be liable to supervision as to his residence, or to be ordered to move from one place to another under police supervision, or to be ordered to withdraw from the country. It is understood that, should the Irish Free State Government decide to put this Statute into operation, a questionnaire will be issued to everyone resident in Ireland, and they will have to declare whether they claim to be Irish citizens or whether they claim to be British citizens. The Dominions Secretary stated that he was advised that the Bill did not purport to deprive, and could not in any case deprive, any person of the status of a British subject. That is true outside the Irish Free State, but has the right hon. Gentleman the authority to enforce that statement in the Irish Free State?
The land annuities have been confiscated, and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the judiciary and civil servants withheld. The annuities amounted to about £3,000,000 a year and the pensions to about £2,000,000. The British Government took steps to deal with this matter by charging additional duties on Irish commodities imported into this country. The amount collected by the British Government amounts to much less than the £5,000,000. An Act of the Irish Parliament set up a system of the licensing of businesses that it was desired to set up, with a strict limitation as to the
amount of foreign money that could be invested and with a provision that the greater part of the capital must be Irish Free State capital. There is also a system of licensing imports, and there are quotas and bounties, causing great confusion in the commercial arrangements which the Irish Free State are making in order to obtain for the Irish people economic freedom from the bondage of Great Britain. What has been the result? In 1924 exports from Great Britain to Ireland amounted to upwards of £54,000,000, and in 1934 they were reduced to £26,000,000. In 1924 other countries imported £13,000,000, and in 1934 the figure was very much the same. Exports to Great Britain amounted in 1924 to upwards of £49,000,000, and in 1934 they had been reduced to £17,400,000, while other countries had increased in the 10-year period from £969,000 to £1,200,000.
This falling off in trade shows that the policy of the Irish Government has certainly not benefited the Free State. In order to carry on trade they have paid out of the pockets of the Irish taxpayer subsidies and bounties to the amount of upwards of £3,000,000 a year. Public debt stands at upwards of £42,000,000 which may sound a, very small sum in this House of Commons but which is a, colossal sum when it is remembered that her taxable capacity is only one-sixtyfourth of that of Great Britain. With debt constantly increasing there have been continually increasing deficits. Last year the deficit was £2,432,000 on an expenditure of £29,000,000. County finance is in a deplorable position and rates cannot be collected to the extent of 36.9 per cent. In 1933 a Land Act was passed, and those farmers who purchased their land under the Imperial Government's Land Act can be expropriated and their lands confiscated at prairie value. For instance there are cases in County Galway where some 600 acres have been scheduled and taken at far below their value in order to plant on the land followers and supporters of Mr. de Valera's Government. The amount of legislation passed by the Irish Dail since 1992, when the Free State was set up, to 1934 is upwards of 770 Acts. Now we learn that all these matters in defiance of the Treaty are legal.
The result of the decision of the Privy Council, as summarised in the judgment delivered on 6th June and published in
the "Times" on 7th June, is that as the result of the Statute of Westminster the Irish Government had complete power to legislate and to set aside the Treaty and that everything that they had done was legal. That is contrary to the assurances given by the Dominions Secretary and the Law Officers of the Crown and pit justifies the case that we put before the House. It is no satisfaction to be able to say "I told you so," and I do not want to press that for a moment, but the Government are now in the position that it is due to the House and the country that they should make some definite statement as to their view of the position and how they propose to deal with the situation thus created. The speech to which I have referred suggested that there had been lost opportunities and that the Government might have met representatives of the Free State and come to a settlement on at least two occasions. While this Debate has been going on it has come to my recollection that there was a meeting when Mr. de Valera came over here and discussed with representatives of the Government for some considerable time, but nothing came of it. We were informed informally that Mr. de Valera and his friends never came down to the discussion of the position of the present day. Their conversations and representations did not get beyond the past history of the relations between Great Britain and Ireland and were of no service to the progress of negotiations. What is the position? This is the kind of statement that is constantly made: Speaking in Dublin on 7th June, Mr. de Valera remarked:
In the matter of our relations with Great Britain time is altogether on our side.
Speaking at Limerick on 30th June, he said:
Before the Government leave office they will bring in a constitution which will be an Irish one from top to bottom. We are at the moment very nearly being completely free. The only thing that is not now done with the will of the people is that a foreign King, as T. call him—a foreign King because, if the people were free, they would not select him as their King—signs some letters of credence in cases where representatives are sent to a foreign country.
Allusion has been made to a statement recently published that Mr. de Valera would not consent that Ireland should be made a base or the possible attack of a
foreign Power. I remember the exuberant phraseology in which the Dominions Secretary welcomed that statement. He represented that it was a voluntary statement. It was voluntary in the sense that it was not asked for by anyone in this country, but it was not altogether voluntary, because pressure was exerted from the Continent. Mr. de Valera's Government have close trade relations with Germany, and they are doing their best to develop sales of Irish produce to Germany and the purchase of German goods. The German press about that time was full of statements that there was an agreement to enable German aeroplanes to use Irish aerodromes and that Ireland might be a base for Germany if there were a quarrel with Great Britain. It had gone so far that some statement had to be made. Either the Irish Free State Government had to ignore the matter, and therefore by inference admit that there was something in it, or give a reply. It was in those circumstances that a statement was published and announced to this House. That is the state of things in Ireland as regards the spirit of hostility which is inculcated and urged upon the Irish people by all parties in the Free State. When Mr. de Valera made this statement, General O'Duffy immediately repudiated it on behalf of the party which is the next largest to the governing party in the Dail, and the Irish parties compete with each other in advocating further damage to English trade and further acts of hostility.
I am not speaking to-day under a feeling of resentment, but as impartially as possible. The House does not often hear statements as to the true position. The Press is reticent on these Irish questions and the people of this country have been rather tired of Ireland for years and hope to forget it. That can never be. As long as the Irish people are dwelling in Ireland and Ireland occupies the geographical position which she does in regard to Great Britain we cannot ignore her. The Irish question is always with us, and a solution will have to be found sooner or later. Where have we got to? Everything in the Treaty which was of any value has gone except the mere signature of the representative of the King. I have a quotation here in which it is represented that that could soon
be done away with. The other part of the Treaty remaining is the right of the British Navy to occupy the Treaty ports and in relation to that Mr. de Valera recently anonunced that there could be no peace while the people and the country are partitioned and Irish ports are held by British forces. The ports referred to are, of course, Berehaven, Queenstown and Lough Swilly, with rights on the shore for establishments in connection with the naval bases. What are the Government going to do about that? These matters are already under discussion in the Free State, and they can come up for discussion at any time. Are they going to be surrendered? All this was brought before the House on the Committee stage of the Statute of Westminster Bill, and the Government should pay attention to it.
I need not apologise to the House for addressing it on this subject, because the state of things is serious, and it is getting worse. The Government have apparently no solution. We are here to ask the Government what they are going to do about the matter? They are not, by their inaction, helping the Irish Treaty. The state of the people in the Irish Free State is becoming steadily worse. The economic position and the difficulty of collecting taxes grow worse, and the Government have art appalling deficit. The position of Irish loyalists, and by those I mean the people who had faith in the British Government and who supported it so long as it was in Ireland, grows worse and worse under the present regime and the spirit which is being incultated in Ireland. Their position is one of the gravest anxiety, If the right hon. Gentleman could give some word of comfort that they would get some support from the Government of this country to help them to secure the rights which ought to be secured for them, and that the treaty is made and intended for that purpose, the Government would be taking a step forward far greater and more welcome than any which any recent British Government have taken with regard to Ireland. We cannot ignore the Irish question, and therefore I have ventured to detain the House in order to set before it, as briefly and as impartially as I can, how far this question has gone, and to ask the Government to make a declaration which will reassure us.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. HEALY: There have been many Debates on the subject of Ireland in this House. Hon. Members who were here in the time of John Redmond will remember that he endeavoured to settle the question from a Dominion point of view. A little earlier Parnell endeavoured to settle it on somewhat similar lines, but the attempt was always frustrated by diehards of the type of the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). It is a curious circumstance that while the diehard group here have very little influence in matters of world politics, they have tremendous influence not only in this House but outside this House when it is a question of Ireland. The only explanation that I can give for that anomaly is that the political and religious commitments of Ireland arouse a certain resentment in Englishmen who might, in ordinary circumstances, be perfectly rational. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made a complaint against the Irish Free State that they had appointed a Governor-General who was a shopkeeper. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman, from the higher social position in which he stands, looking down upon a shopkeeper, but I should imagine, at the same time, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman owes a good deal in this world to the advocacy of shopkeepers up and down the country, and not least in the Irish Free State.

Colonel GRETTON: The hon. Member is making a personal statement about me. I am clearly a manufacturer, a shopkeeper, and a trader, and I do not disguise the fact, and I have never disguised it. I was pointing out that the gentleman I mentioned who is now Governor-General of the Free State is a man who has no eminence in politics in the Free State.

Mr. HEALY: Whether he has any eminence in the Free State or not, he is one whom the Free State trust, and that is the best possible title to the position he holds. Another grievance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was that the Irish Free State have repealed a number of matters. There is one of which I would like to remind him, and that is proportional representation. That has not been repealed. It was put upon the Statute Book for the protection of his friends, the
minority in Southern Ireland. But his friends, who are in a majority in Northern Ireland, repealed it as soon as they possibly could. I ask my hon. Friends to contrast the treatment of the minority in Northern Ireland with the relative treatment of the minority in Southern Ireland.
I have no doubt that the majority of the English people would welcome a settlement of the present dispute, but I fear that the English people will never be asked for their opinion. The vast majority of the people of Ireland would likewise welcome a settlement, not only of the land annuities, but of the wider question of Irish unity with which it is involved. It is only a small minority in. Ireland who are represented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton and his friends in this House, who desire a continuance of the Border, Again, it may be prophesied that the Irish people will never be given an opportunity of settling anything in their relations to this country. The politicians here are afraid of allowing the Irish people the right of self-determination. That is why this House, without the support of any representative from Ireland either from the North or from the South, passed the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 partitioning Ireland and thereby laying the foundation of all the subsequent trouble. That made two Irelands where there was only one Ireland before, and, if the Government and the Dominions Office are really in earnest about settling this question, they must go back to 1920 when the Partition Act was put into force.
I want to make it clear at once that the majority of the Irish people, from Mr. de Valera downwards, would welcome any settlement which would establish a, real basis of peace And good will between your country and ours. We need your co-operation; you need our co-operation even in times of peace. In times of war the existence of a sore, rather revengeful Ireland might lead to the undoing not only of this country, but of Ireland herself. While there is yet time every opportunity should be availed of for settling the dispute which has gone on now for far too long a period. On the question of land annuities, out of which the dispute really arose—and not out of anything connected with the Statute of Westminster—the present Government of the Irish Free State believe that they are
not due, and in fulfilment of that belief they have offered to leave the question to the arbitration of any neutral tribunal. In ordinary disputes between other countries an offer of that kind would be considered fair. It is a matter of principle and not of personality. No doubt there could be found some Colonial jurist or statesman who could settle the matter amicably as between the two disputants.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: Mr. Justice Feetham.

Mr. HEALY: I will come to that in a moment. The Irish people point to the arbitration settlement of 1923, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has just referred, and the disastrous effects it has had upon the Irish people. The hon. Member knows that it was stipulated in the Treaty that the wishes of the people as to which side of the border they were willing to live should be ascertained. That article of the Treaty was as sacred as any other article of the Treaty. There was also, it is true, economic and geographical considerations, but the paramount question was the wishes of the people. The Chairman of the Boundary Commission refused to ascertain the wishes of the people in any given area, and, therefore, I am afraid, that when you suggest to the Free State Government or to the national people of Ireland a Dominions tribunal, they are not going simply to accept it, having in mind what occurred in 1925 on the boundary question. Mr. de Valera says that he is willing to submit the question of the Irish land annuities to an impartial tribunal, without conditions in any way. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean that the umpire might not be a citizen of the British Empire. Mr. de Valera simply asks that the question should be left open. On the other hand, the Dominions Office stipulate that the umpire must be a citizen of this country.
My colleague and I in this House represent 400,000 Northern Nationalists, one-third of the population over which the Northern Government holds sway today. They have no other representative here. We believe that the Treaty of 1931 between Great Britain and the Irish Free State has never been carried out. When you talk about the implementation of other Treaties, remember that the Irish
Treaty has never been implemented. Probably we shall hear something from the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to-night. He was one of the original signatories of the Treaty. Griffiths and Collins, two of the original signatories of that document, went to their graves in defence of it, believing that their co-signatories on the British side would be equally honest, but when the Free State Government meticulously carried out their share of the contract you refused to carry out the most vital part of it, Clause 12. You refused to ascertain the wishes of the people of the north, with the result that you have got a large body of people held unwillingly under the control of the Northern Government who from a sense of fair play ought to be under the Free State Government.
The majority of the Irish people do not believe that you are entitled to the land annuities, either in law or in justice. I would suggest that the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs should look into this matter with a view to ascertaining whether there is not a great deal more in the contention of the Irish Free State than he was prepared to admit in 1932 when he rushed legislation through this House of a retaliatory character. The claim to the land annuities rests upon two documents, one of the 18th February, 1923, and the other of the 19th March, 1926, which the Dominions Secretary says are as binding on both countries as the Treaty. The first agreement was evidently and clearly of a provisional kind. It was not signed by a British Minister and it was not disclosed to Parliament until 1932. Hon. Members can form their own conclusions, as the people of Ireland have formed their conclusions, as to the reason for concealing this document for a period of nine years in the archives of the Dominions Office. I suggest that it was because the Irish signatory found that he had made a mistake.
In the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 one article stipulated that:
The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof
But the Anglo-Irish Boundary Compact of 1925, signed by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Epping and a number of other right hon. Gentlemen, and by three Free State Ministers and two Ministers representing Northern
Ireland, released the Irish Free State from the obligation of contributing anything to the public debt of the United Kingdom. Except on the assumption that the land annuities do not form part of the public debt of the United Kingdom, Ireland's obligation in that respect was entirely wiped out. When the Irish land stock was issued in 1903, both in the speech of Mr. George Wyndham, in introducing the Measure in this House, and in the money article in the "Times" of the 23rd and 25th October, 1903, it was made perfectly clear that the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom would be responsible for the payment of the annuities, ultimately. When the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs says that this is not a public debt but a debt as between the stockholders on the one hand the Irish tenant farmers on the other hand, he has no public document to confirm his statement. In the "Times" of the 23rd October, 1903, it was stated that if the income from the land annuities was insufficient it would be charged on and made payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it was a public debt and the agreement of 1925 absolved the Free State from any contribution towards the public debt of the United Kingdom.
Mr. de Valera has never said that he is unwilling to pay. On the contrary, he has said that if an impartial tribunal decide the money is due, he will reconsider the whole matter. It must be very difficult for the American people, whose good will you seek, to see the honesty and consistency of statesmen who fail to pay their own debt, contracted through recent borrowings, and yet turn round and throttle the Irish Free State for a debt of another kind, although the alleged debtor has offered to submit the whole matter to an impartial tribunal. It must be difficult likewise for the Italian people to recognise the disinterestedness of your efforts for peace, even to the extent of ceding a part of your own territory, when they see you making war on a neighbour over a debt of which you are so uncertain and so doubtful and which you refuse to submit to neutral arbitration. We saw recently how willing you were to keep the ring during the Saar plebescite. You were exceedingly anxious that the wishes of the Saar people should be unhampered and unhindered. I can scarcely think
that it is the same people and the same Government who refused to ascertain the wishes of the people of Ireland but who were so tremendously interested in seeing that the people of the Saar Basin should have no obstacles placed in their way of going to the poll. You have created a special Ministry for the creation of friendliness among other nations, but your action at home nullifies your efforts abroad. You have forgiven millions of debt to foreign countries in exchange for friendly relations. You forgive and forget major injuries, even from old foes like Germany, but on the first opportunity you raise the mailed fist to the Irish people because of a small disputed debt.
Northern Ireland in 1921 agreed to pay an imperial contribution of £7,000,000 per year. Northern Ireland has not paid £7,000,000, £3,000,000 or £2,000,000. Last year instead of paying any contribution Northern Ireland received a grant from this country. In 1927 the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland made a declaration that the time might come when instead of paying this country a contribution he would be coming to you for a contribution. No party in this House has made the suggestion that Northern Ireland should be subjected to penal enactments because she has not been able to fulfil the conditions of the Act of 1920. Therefore, the only conclusion that one can draw from the disparity of treatment as between Northern Ireland and the Free State is that you are more concerned here with national prejudice and that the question of land annuities is merely a red herring drawn across the trail. Northern Ireland draws £650,000 from land annuities within her own borders, and the people of the Free State see no reason why if Northern Ireland can collect £650,000 and use that money for her own expenditure purposes there should be any differentiation between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.
The amount of the Irish Land Annuities as quoted by the Dominions Secretary is not a correct figure. It is not a real figure. It is well known that in the War years an official of the Public Debt Office was able to go into the money market and purchase £100 Irish Land Stock for as low a figure as £43. Therefore, you have largely extinguished this debt yourselves. You have bought it up, and to say that the Irish Free State owe a certain sum of money when you know
perfectly well that they do not owe it, is wrong. You extinguished the debt a considerable time ago. Moreover, when the Irish Land Act was passing through this House the Sinking Fund was assumed to accumulate at from 2½ to 2¾ per cent. Many times during the War you earned 6 per cent. on the money. Therefore, the figure which it is stated the Irish Free State owe is not real but bogus, almost as bogus as the whole case that you put up for the Land Annuities. You cannot coerce the Irish people into doing something that they feel they have a right not to do. History ought to have brought that lesson home to you a long time ago.
There is another aspect of the matter which may not have occurred to hon. Members. The Irish people are threatened from two sources. One is the die-hards who sit in this House and the other the die-hards in Ireland. You say to the Irish people that they cannot have a republic, and the republicans in Ireland say that nothing else but a republic can be set up. I suggest in these circumstances that the advisable thing to do is to allow the Irish people to decide whether they want a republic or not. Probably they do not. There are many people in Ireland who would go a long way to win the friendship and good will of the people in this country, and, if you would allow them to decide for themselves, you would only be doing what you have done in other parts of the world. The Irish people contend that they should have this opportunity and that you should not refuse to allow them the right of saying whether they want one type of government or another. They have been the best customers of this country and in the War took a most conspicuous part, but you give preferential treatment to those people who were your enemies a little while ago.
I should like to remind the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton that the outstanding feature of this dispute is the fair play which the minority in Ireland have received. The assemblies of the nonconformist churches have borne willing testimony to the fact that they have been given fair play by the Government, but there is not a single clergyman or individual in the North of Ireland who can truthfully say that of the Northern Government, which you bolster up with huge grants year after year. If you want
a settlement of the Irish question you can have it, but not on the basis of partition or a division of the country. There are many people in the North who are as intensely patriotic as the people of this country, and it is not their wish that the country should be partitioned. That was not their solution. That solution was found in this House, not, in Ireland. Until you allow the whole of the Irish people an opportunity of saying how and in what manner they desire a settlement, you cannot settle it at all.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. ROSS: It is always a real pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Healy). It is a still rarer pleasure to hear his colleague, who has been a Member for a year and a-half and has only been here once. I am looking forward to seeing him again soon. The hon. Member claimed to represent 400,000 people. I cannot recognise the grounds on which he makes such a claim, because his colleague who was elected later only succeded in collecting 28,000 votes out of 118,000, about 25 per cent. of the electors. That does not look like 400,000 people. The hon. Member talks of Irish unity. He is always talking about it. He spoke in my constituency during the election for the Northern Parliament about 15 months ago, and gave us his solution. He said that until partition was ended nothing would be achieved. He was reported to have said—I will accept his denial if the report was inaccurate—that the opportunity to achieve unity in Ireland was on the next occasion when the British Empire would be involved in war. Is that so? Apparently it is. The hon. Member is looking forward to taking advantage of a war in which the British Empire is involved; perhaps he may help to involve us in war. If it is to be such an advantage, is it not a logical course for him to assist in involving us in war. And this is the hon. Member who comes here and says that he and his people are being brutally treated. Hon. Members can judge for themselves. The speeches which are made in Ireland are different from the speeches which are made here.
Then there are the complaints of oppression, which are all nonsense. What is the test? The population in Northern Ireland is suffering from an influx of people from the Irish Free
State, who are eager to get into Northern Ireland. Persons living in the Irish Free State have actually offered to change on a valuation basis with people living in Northern Ireland so that our own people can get back under the British flag, but there has never been a single instance of anyone living in Northern Ireland of the hon. Member's political opinions offering to exchange his holding with any one in the Irish Free State. I should like to tell the hon. Member that if he has any hope, however remote, of the people of Ulster consenting to enter the somewhat dilapidated utopia of the Irish Free State he is building on false foundations. Apart from an entire difference of sentiment and feeling, on mere material grounds such an act would be folly.
What is the present position in the Irish Free State? There is an adverse balance of trade of over £19,000,000, greater than the total exports of the country. That is the situation which has been brought about by the Government of the Irish Free State. The allegation has been made—not for the first time; indeed, it is one which is so stale, old and utterly discredited that I should have thought the hon. Member would never have made it again—that Northern Ireland agreed to pay £7,000,000. We never agreed to any such tiling. It was part of the Act of 1920, which was not supported by either the Nationalists or the Ulster party. That Act merely laid down the contribution as a first contribution which was to be varied by the Exchequer according to circumstances. That is under Section 23 of the Act, and we have always fulfilled our obligations under that Section, always, whereas Southern Ireland has avoided paying anything.

Mr. HEALY: It never functioned.

Mr. ROSS: The Act of 1920 functioned for a little while, but the Irish Free State did not pay anything under that Act or under any other Act. Then there is the question of the Boundary Commission. On one point the hon. Member was prepared to be subject to the judgment of a colonial judge. I reminded him of Mr. Justice Feetham, a man of the highest standard, who has been entrusted with Imperial discussions not only in Ireland but elsewhere, and has fulfilled them with the greatest
distinction and impartiality. Because Mr. Justice Feetham decided against the view of the hon. Member—who incidentally always comes here to represent the Irish Free State and not his own constituency—the hon. Members says, "No, Mr. Justice Feetham was a Colonial judge. He did not decide in our favour, and we will not have any more Colonial judges. We will look for someone who will decide in our favour." So, many of our people have to live unjustly under conditions which they dislike, and they cannot, even by offering to exchange their homes, get back to Northern Ireland. Those people could have been transferred by the decision of the Feetham Commission. That decision was received by the Irish Free State Government. They were given a very good inducment to accept a status quo, which was far more than they deserved, and for accepting the status qua they were to be relieved of the national debt. With what gratitude is that received? We have the preposterous argument that the land annuities are part of the national debt. I do not need to argue that point any further, because it is so manifestly absurd.
We have constantly the cry from all Irish parties about the crime of partition. Of course, partition was only produced by the Nationalist aspirations of people in Southern Ireland. They made partition; they split the country. We were prepared to exist in the unity of Ireland and in the larger unity of the British Isles. It is no fault of ours that these two unities have been fractured. Let us examine for a moment the policy of successive Free State Governments as regards partition. Have they endeavoured to struggle with the disadvantages of partition? Have they endeavoured to counteract its effects? Not they. There has been no single instance where they could emphasise partition that they have not done so. Long before this controversy, in the days of the Cosgrave Government, every obstacle has always been put in the way of trade from North Ireland to the Free State. Every opportunity to flout the opinions which we hold has been used by the Government of the Free State. The policy of complaining of partition is controverted by every act they do. Partition need only be just a line on
the map. It is the Free State Government who have made it more. I do not wish to allude to the remarks of leading people in the Free State.

Mr. HEALY: You should, especially of the leaders of your own churches.

Mr. ROSS: I will. I am always ready to oblige the hon. Member. One remark will suffice. What is well known in the Free State is our devotion to Great Britain and to its Ruler, and the allusion of Mr. de Valera to our King as a foreign King was an insult which we resent. That is the kind of thing which makes the division between the two parts of Ireland a real one and a lasting one, as well as the mere fiscal and Customs regulations along the border. There is a disunion of hearts there which it will be hard to bridge. The situation has become such that now we are getting, instead of one community, two communities crystallising on each side of the frontier owing to the actions of the Free State Government.

Mr. HEALY: The action of this House.

Mr. ROSS: So the hon. Member says, but that plea is not supported by very much evidence. Who was it that began putting on duties at the border? Not the British Government. It was the Irish Free State Government. Who is it that is constantly being aggressive and alluding to the intention to secure the whole of Ireland under its rule? Not Northern Ireland. This Government and this House have no ambition to return to the Government of Southern Ireland. They have had enough of that. There was a sonnet written which fittingly expresses the attitude of this House towards Southern Ireland:
Since there is no help, then let us kiss and part.
No, I have done; You get no more of me.
And I am glad; yes, glad with all my heart,
That thus so cleanly I myself get free.
That is fairly accurately the position of this House towards the Irish Free State.
Let me turn to what is really the subject of this Debate. The Statute of Westminster is indeed a melancholy subject, because the position as it transpires is in fact so contrasted with the position as it was represented to us at the time
of the Debate. I use the expression, not with any hostile intention, but with very great regret. I think that at that time the Government were buoyed up with a feeling of optimism which was entirely unjustified, perhaps even in a spirit of complacency. It is a fact that throughout the Debate on the Second Reading three Irish Members spoke, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid), my hon. enemy the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, and myself. I think we did agree in one thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh spoke with that sincerity which I know is always his and which I have always respected and always shall. He took the Statute as being a step on the road to the destruction of the Treaty. So it is, and so it was. But the Government had formed a different view. I do not propose, as I am a very humble member of the legal profession, to deal with the legal aspect of the Statute of Westminster, but I do hope that towards the end of this Debate one or other of the Law Officers of the Crown will be able to explain to us why their advice on that occasion was so entirely different from the advice given by a Law Officer of the Crown to the Privy Council upon the present position.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will my hon. Friend be a little more explicit if he makes a statement of that sort?

Mr. ROSS: Is it contended by my right hon. and learned Friend that the position as exemplified by the decision of the Privy Council is the same as that which he explained during the Debate upon the Statute of Westminster? If so, it is rather startling. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me. I did not propose to deal with a matter which seemed to me so obvious.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know that it is very important, but my hon. Friend has made a statement, and then he asked me whether I deny something about which he fails to be explicit. If he will call the attention of the House to the point on which he says I have expressed two different opinions, I shall be able to deal with it. That is all.

Mr. ROSS: I think on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster the right hon. Gentleman did not inform anybody that the appeal
to the Privy Council would thereby be destroyed. He cited with complete approval the maiden speech of my hon. and learned Friend the present Solicitor General who made further statements which certainly gave the impression to his hearers that the position as to the Treaty was not being fundamentally altered. To me, in my ignorance, it appears that by the recent decision to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded earlier, the position has been altered fundamentally and that one of the most important safeguards if not the most important safeguard, has by the Statute of Westminster been utterly destroyed. But we did not know that such would be the case when that Measure was going through the House. I know that there were some guarded statements by Members of the Government. I know that there was a certain amount of caution, but I certainly do not think that anyone in the House, particularly any Unionist Member of the House, believed that the safeguards of the Irish Loyalists in Ireland were going to be destroyed by the action which we were taking at that time.
I hope I have been sufficiently explicit. I raise this point not with any idea of engaging in a futile discussion on legal doctrine, because what I am interested in is the position of the Southern Loyalists and our relations with the Irish Free State. As to the general position, I cannot see how the Treaty can be wiped out by the Statute of Westminster. All that Statute purports to do is to put the authority of the Irish Free State Legislature on a parity with the authority of other legislatures in the British Common-wealth of Nations. Does that mean that a solemn agreement entered into between two of these great communities can be thrown into the waste-paper basket? In my submission, it cannot possibly mean anything of the kind, and that view is supported not only here but in the Irish Free State. What was the view of the Irish Free State Government at the time? They deposited the Treaty with the League of Nations as being, in their view, a Treaty between parties who were competent to make a Treaty irrespective of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It was deposited with the League, and I think that, technically, on a breach of the Treaty—though of course such an action would be absurd—we would be entitled to appeal to the League of Nations and to
get one of those forceful interventions which the League from time to time makes in order to get its will observed in the world. The view which I have mentioned was the view of the Irish Free State Government at that time and it is the view of Mr. Cosgrave to-day because he said only the night before last at a meeting in Dublin that the position of the Treaty, in his opinion, was unaffected by the Statute of Westminster. As to general considerations I think that is so.
I have only to add this. We all know that the Irish Free State, however much they may repudiate the British connection are always very well represented in London and that negotiations for trade agreements have been going on. If such negotiations are going on at present it would be interesting to know exactly what they are about. I suppose it would be too much to ask for that information but it certainly would be interesting. However, I have heard two pledges from the Secretary of State for the Dominions and I merely repeat those two pledges with the remark that, unless the right hon. Gentleman desires to vary them in any way, I take it that we can accept them as still binding. The first is that the interests of Northern Ireland shall never be jeopardised in any possible agreement come to with the Irish Free State. The other is that in the minor matter of interchange of trade the right hon. Gentleman will remember that Ulster is more affected by the reprisals which his policy—his just policy—have brought about than any other part of the Kingdom. If he is making any such agreement as I have indicated I hope he will bear in mind the interests and the rights of those who have, I think, supported his policy as valiantly as any.

8.41 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I think I can assure the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—at least I feel it in my bones—that whatever may be the composition of this House in future, no Government would dare to go back on their word to Ulster. I can hardly imagine that anyone, even in these days of facile change and short memories, would advocate such a policy, except perhaps the hon. Gentleman who feels it his duty to represent the Irish Free State in this House. But it is the case all through the country at the present
time that when this Irish trouble is mentioned everybody turns away and, as for us politicians, we are inclined immediately to assume an ostrich-like demeanour and hide our heads in the sand. But even His Majesty's Government themselves must now realise that the time has come when we have to consider the position of this country vis-à-vis the Irish Free State.
I make no apology for reminding the right hon. Gentleman that some of us did warn this House of what was going to happen. I myself tabled a Motion in 1919 pointing out what the situation would be and, in 1921, some 40 of us—the remnant of whom were associated together in the last two years on another issue—gave a similar warning. We actually proposed a Vote of Censure and told His Majesty's Government of that time of our conviction that whatever the sincerity of Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths—which we did not doubt—there were forces in Ireland which would make it impossible for the Treaty to be honoured. I know that we were labelled "diehards" at that time. I think the term was then intended to convey that we were prepared to perish, at any rate politically, for our principles. But if hon. Members will study the few occasions on which those who were then described as "diehards" have intervened, they will find that those interventions have always been made out of love of country and for the purpose of warning our fellow-countrymen of dangers which might arise. Looking back on those occasions I think it may also be said that the term "diehard" in future can be regarded as including the term "prophet." Like my right hon. Friend who spoke earlier it is to me a tragedy that the State of Ireland should be as we see it at present because there were genuine hopes in this House that by this great gift, as great gift it was—indeed a Quixotic gift—a completely new spirit was going to be created in Ireland. I would remind the House of the words of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was responsible for negotiating this Treaty behind the backs of this House, and we were then informed of the fait accompli. He said:
By this agreement we win a deep, abiding, and passionate loyalty. Our peril will be her danger; our fears will be her anxiety; our victory will be her joy.
I am afraid that we must all confess that that has not been the spirit. The good will and the co-operation which we were told on all hands would come about have been distinctly absent. My right hon. and gallant Friend pointed out all the different occasions on which the decisions of the Treaty have been completely wiped out. He referred to the oath of allegiance, to the appeals to the Privy Council, and to those other vital questions, such as citizenship and other points of that description. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Healy) was incensed with my right hon. and gallant Friend because he happened to mention the Governor who was appointed by Mr. de Valera. I think, to be quite fair to my right hon. and gallant Friend, it was not owing to the fact that he was a shopkeeper that he was appointed. The fact was, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, that apparently this gentleman was chosen particularly because his name was absolutely unknown in Ireland, as much as to say, "We will appoint somebody absolutely unknown, to show that the office is a cipher." Mr. de Valera announced in the Dail:
There is a difficulty in getting rid of the signing of Bills; but even that can be got over. The moment we are rid of these functions, we will get rid of the office.
Therefore, I do not think Mr. de Valera himself is very anxious to uphold the honour and dignity of this gentleman whom he appointed. He went on to say, on the 28th May last, on the Vote for the Governor-General's establishment:
I do not think it will be moved again, because there will be hardly any good reason for the continuance of the office.
It is no good anyone coming to this House and saying, "Let the Irish people have self-determination to decide what their future is to be," and at the same time deny that self-determination apparently to Ulster. Ulster has to go into the pot and to be voted down by those in the South. It will be self-determination for them, but not for their neighbours in the North. The fact remains that we have now arrived at the position that on every vital safeguard in this Irish Treaty no longer are we able to sustain the position unless His Majesty's Government are going to take action. How far are they going to allow it to go? What is their policy? No one can deny their difficulties—everybody knows them—but you cannot allow this matter to
drift. It is intolerable to think you are gradually going to allow the whole of this honourable undertaking, which was carried out by distinguished citizens of the Irish Free State in solemn conclave, to be torn to shreds month after month and month after month. That is impossible.
I think we have cause also to complain of His Majesty's Government, because, in the Debate on the Statute of Westminster, some of us had doubts, and they were expressed very eloquently by some of my hon. Friends, as to whether in fact the Statute of Westminster did not make it possible for the people of Leland through their Government to break the various Clauses of the Treaty. We certainly had soothing statements from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Dominions, who, I believe, is going to offer a few remarks later on, and who has been giving us solemn advice for the last few years on another subject—and time and time again we had the assurances of the Law Officers of the Crown—but innocently, no doubt, without any guile, and certainly with full belief that his soothing judgments were correct at that time. I think every Member of the House must agree, after what has happened in the Free State in the last three or four months, that if we are to take the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman as having been gospel at the time they were made, those statements have been unfulfilled. Therefore, we are in this very difficult position, that gradually under this machinery every single one of these printed parts of that Treaty have been torn up.
Ireland is rapidly passing, as we declared she would pass, into the hands of republicans. How far are we going? Have not the Government a duty to the security of this island and of the British Empire to say what their policy is and how far they are going to tolerate this position? Have they not a duty to the 200,000, it may be, Irish loyalists who have suffered so grievously owing to the betrayal by this House, in insisting that their rights are carried out; and have we not a duty to the whole fabric of Empire to see that it is impossible that this position can go from bad to worse? Many a time have I heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on these benches, above and below the Gangway on this side, speak of the great spirit of Abraham
Lincoln. When we see the British Empire gradually disappearing, and when we look at the map of this mighty confederation of peoples as it was at the end of the War, and then look at it to-day, and at what it will be in a few years' time, I ask, Is it not time that we began to stand firm and to make sure that this wreck cannot go on?

8.52 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I have listened to the greater part of this Debate, waiting to hear some constructive proposal from some of the hon. Members who have been criticising the Government for not showing a more decided policy in this connection. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who has just sat down, made a very fierce attack on the Government, but he did not suggest what he wanted to do. I understand that the position of Ireland is that of the other Dominions. She has her future in her own hands. The formation of such a Government as she will enjoy in the future, she will be responsible for. Does the hon. Baronet suggest that we should attempt to mould the future government of Ireland by force?

Sir H. CROFT: I will reply at once. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit that Ireland should become a republic, then that is an absolute betrayal of the whole of the pledges of this House, and it means the break-up of the Empire.

Sir R. HAMILTON: It is no use going back into past history and saying what you expected might happen. We have to deal with the present position, with what will be the position in the future, and with what manner of control or influence we, on this side of the Channel, can exercise on the future destinies of Ireland. Does the hon. Baronet suggest that we should amend the Statute of Westminster? There is another Dominion besides Ireland that has taken advantage of the Statute of Westminster. Canada has done away with appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters. The Free State has done away with appeals in civil matters. I think some of us in this House are apt to forget that the Statute of Westminster, although, when it was passed, many people did not realise what its full implications were—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!

Sir R. HAMILTON: That is quite true. We realise them now, but that Statute of Westminster gave the freedom to our Dominions that our Dominions wanted. Is it suggested anywhere in this House to-day that we are going to diminish the amount of freedom that our Dominions enjoy to-day? There is some difference, it is true, with regard to Ireland, because the Treaty was embodied in a Statute. A Treaty which is drawn up between two authorities in the ordinary course is brought to an end either by consent or by the power of denunciation which may be in the Treaty itself. In this case the House made the Treaty into a statute, and when a treaty becomes part of the statute law of the country it is open to amendment by further law. That is what has been done in this case.
The judgment of the Privy Council is perfectly clear that when the Statute of Westminster did away with the Colonial Laws (Validity) Act of 1865 it was open to the Parliament of the Irish Free State to pass an amending law, which would otherwise have been forbidden. We have to realise that the position is altered by the Statute of Westminster. I take it that it is going to remain on the Statue Book and is not going to be amended because of the action which the Irish were perfectly legally entitled to take under it. Ireland has not done anything illegal in amending the appeals to the Privy Council. I do not propose to go with some hon. Members who have spoken to-night into the past history of Ireland, either Northern or Southern Ireland. The destiny of Northern and Southern Ireland has to be settled by the people of Ireland themselves. When the Treaty was signed the drawing of that boundary across the island was regretted by everyone who saw it done. It was regarded as a regrettable necessity at that time, and one hopes that in days to come that line may disappear, but it can only disappear by the free will of both Northern and Southern Ireland. I do not see how we in this House are going to help forward that day if we meddle unduly and unfairly in the affairs of Ireland when Irishmen have the responsibility on their own shoulders.
The main cause of my rising to-night is simply to say that there has, I think, been a change of opinion in England with regard to the attitude that was taken up
as to the tribunal that should settle the original dispute which arose over the question of the land annuities. Great apprehension exists in this country lest this continued state of semi-warfare should be allowed to drag on year after year. The country is getting more and more desirous that it should be brought to an end at the earliest opportunity. I frankly say that I have modified my opinion in that respect. When I spoke on this matter a year or two ago I hoped very much that an Imperial tribunal would be the one to settle it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government really consider themselves bound on that question of an Imperial tribunal. I do not suppose anyone in the House would not prefer an Imperial tribunal to a more open one, because we like to settle our domestic matters ourselves, but, if this matter can be settled by any manner of means by arbitration, is the door absolutely closed to another form of tribunal and to looking to Geneva or to the Hague for a choice of arbitrators which would meet with the consent of both parties? It does seem a miserable state of affairs that we should continue to say, "We are willing to arbitrate on this dispute if you will arbitrate in this manner," and that the Irish should say, "We are willing to arbitrate if you arbitrate in that manner." Surely two great peoples can come together in a matter like this instead of letting questions of dignity stand in the way? I ask the Government to give some assurance to the country that they will take every step to get the trouble of land annuities out of the way and to do something to improve the atmosphere.

Sir PATRICK FORD: Does the hon. Member, in making the proposal about a tribunal which is not an Imperial tribunal, want to give the House the impression that he talking of opinion in Scotland, seeing that he is a Scottish Member?

Sir R. HAMILTON: If I were in Scotland it might be a Scottish opinion. At the moment I am in London, but it is not an opinion which is confined to either. It is an opinion which I have found to be widening very much in the country. At first everyone was in favour of an Imperial tribunal, but the people are getting
so dissatisfied with this wretched dispute carrying on, that they say—

Sir P. FORD: Where? In Scotland?

Sir R. HAMILTON: My hon. Friends in the party for which I have the honour to speak have altered their opinion, as I know that others have altered theirs. I frankly say that I have altered my opinion, and I think that there are a great many other people who have altered their opinion in the same direction, for the reason that they want to see an end put to this miserable dispute which is keeping the two countries apart.

9.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I do not want to enter into the arguments that have been advanced in regard to the situation between this country and the Free State except to express a feeling of regret that the Opposition should have chosen this particular subject on which to attack the Government. This is a problem affecting three nations—Britain, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is a problem on which everyone of good will should have brought constructive suggestions to bear in order that we might get back to a working understanding between the three countries. I do not think that the Government deserve any blame for the way in which they have handled this problem. In times past I have criticised my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary, but I do not think that in the last few years be could have taken any steps but the steps that he has taken. The trouble is that owing to the temporary fictitious prosperity which has been gained in the Free State by the excessive use of tariffs and the seizure of the land annuities, the President of the Free State has been in a position in which it has been impossible to negotiate with him, and, in spite of the conciliatory attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend, it was found in practice impossible to make any impression on the political exterior of Mr. de Valera. I do not believe I have ever found myself in agreement with a Liberal in my life, but to-night I can agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir It. Hamilton) in one point. He stated that we are dwelling too much in the past. It is a tragic tradition in Ireland to regard the past as a justification for the present, and even for the future. It is a tragic
tradition to blame the living for the misdeeds of the dead. That attitude has not alone been adopted in Ireland. It has been adopted in this House. I have noticed speeches year after year, including, I am sorry to say, speeches of my own, in which everyone has failed to face the realities of the moment.
We have to consider and to face the realities to-night. The first reality is the fact that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the final arbiter of all issues, has decided that the Statute of Westminster overrides the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. That means that the Free State Government or any other Government in the Empire has a right to decide for itself what form of government it shall have, even to the extent of a form of government that removes it entirely from association with the British Empire. With all due respect to my many friends who have spoken on this subject it seems to me that no useful purpose can now be served by criticising the Statute of Westminster or the methods by which it was achieved. I was one of its opponents throughout the whole of its stages, but I realise that it is now the law of Britain and the Empire and we have to recognise its permanent existence. The logical and only honest course for this House is to see how it can reconcile the existence and the results of that Statute with the aspirations of the Irish Free State to-day as voiced by the various leaders in it, because on that particular question there is no divergence of opinion among them. Whether it is Mr. de Valera or General Duffy or Mr. Cosgrave, they are all united on this one subject.
I was rather encouraged to intervene this evening by a statement I saw in, possibly, not a very reputable organ, the "News Chronicle," in which Mr. de Valera was reputed to have said that what he wanted was freedom to have an all-Ireland republic; that he was quite prepared—again I am not "going bail" for the statement made, considering the source from which it comes—to proclaim that republic as part of the Empire and to regard the King as its common head. If that report is true it seems to me that two questions immediately arise, one of name and one of Ulster. There is the question of "Free State" or "republic." I want to now—I am not a lawyer, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend
the Attorney-General will give me information on this point later—what is the fundamental difference between "Free State" and "republic." I have looked at Chambers' Dictionary this afternoon to see whether I could find any light or leading there, and "Free State" is not mentioned in the dictionary; but presumably it is a state free to decide its own political destiny and it derives that power from its own people. There is a dictionary meaning attached to "republic," which is "A state in which the sovereign power is vested in the community." I ask, Where is the difference between these two? [An HON. MEMBER: "Good heavens."] If we examine the only other free state of which we know in recent history, the Orange Free State, that did not stand alone but was a member of a federal republic. These are difficulties and doubts which have suggested themselves, and I put them forward honestly and candidly. If this does not appear to be a strictly Tory speech, that does not mean that it is not an honest speech. I am putting forward certain difficulties which have probably been difficulties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs during the past two or three years—how to reconcile these divergences of opinion, which obviously exist but which some of us believe can be reconciled.
If we have that question as to the fundamental difference between these two names settled—and I think my right hon. and learned Friend will advise us on that—let us come to the question of Ulster. Mr. de Valera and his political opponents, Mr. Cosgrave and General Duffy, make as their ultimate claim an all-Ireland Republic or Federation. That is a point we have to bear in mind—they have not stressed it, but I think myself it is a point of some significance. To that Ulster naturally says, no. Ulster has a Government of which she is justifiably proud and a connection with Great Britain which she ardently wishes to maintain and to preserve, and has a suspicion of the Free State which the latter has certainly never done anything to assuage, and it is obvious that any legislation which is considered in this House must definitely and for all time recognise and protect the integrity of Ulster. It is only Ulster's right, it is a duty
which we owe her for a loyalty unsurpassed throughout the British Empire.
That brings us to our great difficulty. The Ulster Government must be maintained; that is obvious, and there can be no difference of opinion on that point; but according to the Statute of Westminster the Free State apparently has the right, as the Statute is now defined by the Privy Council, to maintain its own individual entity either inside or outside the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] According to the definition that we now have, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have adjudged the Statute of Westminster, as far as I can read it, to give that permission to the Irish Free State, permission to decide for itself on a Government which will take it within or without the British Empire.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that by the Statute of Westminster—the Privy Council's interpretation of it—there is given a legal right to any Dominion of the British Empire to secede from the Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is my reading of it. That is why I am putting these questions, so that we can have definite advice from the one who is most qualified to advise us. This is the proposition which it seems to me one can reasonably make to get out of this impasse. There are many questions of common importance and common interest between the two nations, Ulster and the Free State—the difficult questions of Customs duties, trade, financial policy, the railways, the banking system and canals. All these are questions which somehow or other could be decided by some form of negotiation or common examination, and their settlement is made more important, in my opinion, by the intermarriages and the friendships and the kinships which exist between individuals in the two communities. So while preserving the integrity of both of them surely it should be possible to establish some common medium, a council, call it "a council of common interests." The name seems to indicate an ideal and also something practical. If, as I believe, the council were successful, the result would engender a consolidation of purpose in place of the antagonism which still unhappily exists. This council
could sit alternately in both capitals, so that national or civic pride should not be prejudiced, or could sit in some border town, but it should be charged with the determination to meet and to consider every difficulty put before it in an atmosphere of good will and conciliation. It would be, I am convinced, the beginning of understanding, and I believe it would lead to the end of misunderstanding, and also to the end of those bitter friends of misunderstanding, suspicion and hostility, of which we have had too much.
As for ourselves, I would like us to be courageous and to be bold. If there is no dispute except that of name, I would like the Government and my right hon. Friend to look into the matter to see whether we could not retain a loyal friend in the Free State instead of an embittered enemy, as we have at present. It is no good my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) commenting on what happened 20 years ago. We are 20 years older and 20 years deeper in suspicion and hostility. For centuries Ireland has been torn and racked by living in the past. I want now to live in the future, to work for the future and to try to make both countries in Ireland, and ourselves, happy in each other and with each other. That it can be done I am satisfied, if only the task is approached with imagination and determination and with the courage which I know my right hon. Friend has got. I believe he would have the full support of the House in pursuing that object.
I would say a word of caution. No matter what the President of the Irish Free State may say, we cannot, as an island nation, allow Ireland to be used as a base of attack against us. That applies equally whether Ireland is within the British Empire or outside it. Self-preservation is the strongest of all forces, stronger than sentiment, morality and expediency. We have to be realists. While we are willing to see how reconciliation can be affected, we have to bear in the back of our minds that knowledge that our own self-preservation is the first claim that our people will demand. It may be that what I have suggested will be called by the critics an agreement of compromise, but it is not the first time that compromise has been
tried by Britain and been successful. It is inherent in the genius of our people to govern by compromise. I cannot believe that it could not be tried with as much effect in regard to this problem as it has been tried in the past.
A last personal word: I have a great love for Ulster, which is the land of my birth. I have a great love for the Free State, because it is the land of a very happy boyhood. I have a great love for this country, Britain, because it is the land of, I hope, my more useful middle age. If the suggestion which I have made will lead to a better and happier community existing among us three, I shall be glad that I have intervened in this Debate.

9.17 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): When the Dominions Vote was under discussion, there was general agreement that an opportunity, that was not in order on that day, should be furnished to the House to discuss the wider issue of the Irish Free State arising out of the Privy Council decision. Therefore, to-day, that opportunity being afforded, I rise at once to say that—

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I would like to remind him that the day has been made possible by the courtesy of the Liberal Opposition, and by ourselves being willing to part with a Supply Day in order to make it possible.

Mr. THOMAS: I say without any hesitation, and straightaway, that the opportunity was facilitated by the arrangement to which my right hon. Friend has just referred. It is an arrangement which I am sure the House as a whole will have welcomed. The Debate this evening has raised many issues. On the one side there are those who want to discuss what I would call the purely legal position arising out of the decision. It has been very freely stated that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave certain advice. It will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with what I will call the purely political side of the questions which have been raised. I shall be prepared to give very clear answers to certain specific questions which were raised. In doing so, I hope my position will not be misunderstood,
and that nothing that I say, although it is necessary to give clear and definite answers, will render more difficult the possibility of a settlement between the Irish Free State and ourselves.
I say at the outset that I took the view that there was a breach of agreement, that an honourable understanding between the two Governments was broken, and that if that were allowed to continue between Governments, the relationship so essential to good government would be impossible in the future. I repeat to-night that no action of our Government, even in the imposition of a duty, must be considered as punitive in character. A debt was owing to this country. A sum of money was due to the people of this country. We offered every opportunity to have an adjustment of that matter, but it was refused, and we adopted the only possible means of obtaining for the British people what we believed to be their rights. That, shortly, is the history of the economic question.
I believe that the representative of the Liberal party indicated that they had changed their view. If I am wrong he will correct me, I am sure. He said: "Up to this stage I always took the view, and the Liberal Opposition took the view, that an Empire tribunal was the right body to settle this question. Now, having regard to the length of the dispute and to the long period that has elapsed, I have altered my view." Speaking for his party he said they were now in favour of a tribunal that would include some foreign representative. I think that is a fair representation of what he said. I would first draw attention to the fact that nothing has happened since the last Debate to warrant a change, by a representative body in this House, to repudiate the accepted principle of the last Imperial Conference endorsed by every member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I note the point, and I will only repeat that I refused to believe, when I discussed the matter with Mr. de Valera, and I refuse to admit to-night, that there are not, within the British Commonwealth of Nations, three, five or six men, excluding this country, if you like, sufficiently impartial and fair to arrive at a just and fair conclusion on this matter.
I will now reveal to the House that at Ottawa, with the full authority of my colleagues and in private negotiation, I prepared an offer to go to the length of standing out ourselves, that is to say, Great Britain standing out, and to let the Irish Free State stand out. We would have no representative on the tribunal, provided that tribunal were chosen from the rest of the British Commonwealth of Nations. But it is very obvious this evening that a number of new questions have arisen. I have indicated, and I regret, the change of the Liberal opposition from an Imperial Conference decision—

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Would the right hon. Gentleman point out the decision of the Imperial Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. and learned Friend, of course, will say on a purely legal point that there was no decision. He is right, but there was a common agreement and that was good enough. As for Mr. de Valera I pointed that out to him on the last occasion. I have been asked, and I do not think it is a very innocent question, whether I will advise the House of the difference between the Irish Free State and a Republic. I was amazed to find that question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). We are discussing the Statute of Westminster, and I will try to give the simplest answer. This is what Chapter IV says:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown. …
The difference between a Republic was defined quite honestly by Mr. de Valera when he spoke a few days ago and alluded to His Majesty as "a foreign King." It is no good mincing matters. Either you are in the British Commonwealth of Nations or you are out of it, and if you are prepared to accept all the privileges and advantages of the British Commonwealth of Nations, then that must carry with it, naturally, the obligations and responsibilities of that allegiance.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The reference I made was to the speech by Mr. de Valera in which he said that what he wanted, apparently, was the name
changed, but to remain within the Empire.

Mr. THOMAS: Mr. de Valera's views are well known to me. They have been expressed quite frankly, fairly and honestly by him, and I can summarise them in a sentence. He said, "First, we must be a republic, but for certain external affairs we would be prepared to recognise your King."

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is entirely different from what appeared in the Press.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with what appeared in the Press. I am giving a fair and accurate summary of what Mr. de Valera said. I merely state the facts. My answer is that I do not believe that any Government in this country; not even a Government of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was in charge, would ever face this country and say that the Irish Free State had a constitution that was to be used for some purposes, and in some ways when it suited them, but for other purposes was to be non-existent. That will not be tolerated by the people of this country, and I do not believe any Government would dare face that issue. That is the second point.
The opener of the Debate this afternoon, while dealing with the legal point of view, said that the Government had missed every opportunity of settling this question. I asked him to define the opportunities that we had missed. He gave two. He said that the first was when Mr. de Valera sent his despatch and asked that we should define our attitude if he declared a Republic. The Government—and this House endorsed our action—said that we refused to answer a hypothetical question, but we refused because we did not believe then, and do not believe to-day, that the Free State would declare a republic with all the consequences that follow. This is not a new question to me. Mr. de Valera himself raised it. He raised quite frankly with us the question of a republic. I pointed out to him the effect. There is a lot of silly talk about what are the advantages of becoming a republic, but we are obliged to face the facts. The first effect would be that Irish doctors, and Irish veterinary surgeons, numbering between 8,000 and 9,000, would become
aliens. Thousands of Irishmen who are civil servants would become aliens. The 250,000 ordinary workers who are Irishmen would become aliens, and not one of them could retain his job except by a permit similar to that granted to every foreigner in this country.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) asked what are we going to do about it? My answer is—and I speak authoritatively for the Government—that we are not going to be a party to, and we will take every step we can to prevent, Southern Ireland going out of the British Commonwealth, no matter what may be the temptation, no matter what the irritation may be, no matter how much we may be provoked. The geographical position of Ireland is the best indication that we ought to be friends with Ireland. The economic position of Ireland, her dependence upon us, and her great value to us as a trading community indicate the advantage it would be for us to be friends; and we want to be friends. We are anxious to be friends, but there are certain fundamental facts to be faced. I have already answered the question of the tribunal. No one assumes for one moment that the mere question of annuities is the only difficulty. We could soon get over that difficulty if that were the only matter in dispute. But are the Oath of Allegiance, the Governor-General as the King's representative, "a foreign King" as defined by Mr. de Valera, not fundamental to any settlement? Of course these things are fundamental. Of course they have to be brought into review. Not only this Government, but any other Government and every Irishman in this country, knows that the facts are as. I have stated them. We have missed no opportunity, and we will miss no opportunity.
I was challenged as to why I welcomed Mr. de Valera's statement that he would not be a, party to allowing the Irish Free State to be used as a base against this country. I will welcome any statement and any indication that shows that there is a tendency to try to see our point of view. I will welcome it from Mr. de Valera or anyone else. I will welcome any and every opportunity. But it is not for trade union leaders—and I speak as one who was a trade union leader—to be a party to merely scrapping agreements. In the Labour movement we have had
disputes because employers repudiated their obligations, and we have fought for and maintained the sanctity of agreements. It is necessary in the trade union movement, it is necessary in business life, it is necessary in government, and I intend to uphold and maintain the sanctity of treaties.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that the occasion of this Debate would have been justified in itself alone by the speech which it has drawn from the Dominions Secretary. It was a very courageous speech, a very resolute speech, and one which certainly should not fall from the lips of a representative of National Labour in His Majesty's Government without receiving the sincere support of Conservatives in all parts of this House. I have no quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-night—none whatever. But, in spite of what we have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) about the evils of looking back on the past, I feel absolutely bound to ask the House to cast their memories back a few years. I will not go back too far. If we were to look back on this House as I have seen it as a small boy in the Gallery, with the great parties ranged on each side fighting the Home Rule controversy, we should be able to measure the enormous change which has taken place in our point of view.
If Mr. Gladstone and Mr. John Morley, and those who fought with them, could have listened to this Debate, how they would have recoiled from it if they could have heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberal party, if they could have heard the speech of an hon. Member representing a Unionist constituency in Scotland. If they could have heard all this talk of its being an easy matter of discussion whether there should be a republic or not, or whether we should allow a foreign tribunal to arbitrate a country in or out of the British Empire, all this talk of its being quite an easy matter which can be discussed in a perfectly cool fashion, I am sure that those great pioneers would have revolted, and would have scourged these gentlemen as guilty of putting forward propositions which no patriotic Englishman could entertain.
But those times have passed; I am not going back to those days; I am quite content to go back over the life of this Parliament, and that is all that I am going to deal with now. After all there must be some limit. I quite agree that we live in an age of larger views and shorter memories, but I think that a Parliament ought at any rate to feel a sincere sense of responsibility for its own actions in its own lifetime. I hope that that is not an extreme proposition, and that I shall not be accused of trying to drag matters back into the dark ages when I call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that it was only four years ago that this Parliament first met here in its pristine vigour, in its youthful ardour, in its boiled-over electioneering enthusiasm.
What were the first things that happened when it came together? I think it is a very melancholy fact that the first two things which this Parliament was asked to do when it came together were to pass the Statute of Westminster and to agree to the main outlines of responsible government in India. Both of those great proposals came before Members the great majority of whom were wholly inexperienced, and who had just come back from the country which had elected them on a great surge of national enthusiasm desiring to see Britain great and honourable and secure in the world. The first thing that those Members were asked to do was to commit themselves to these two very far-reaching matters of principle. I think it was a great pity. It was the first step which stamped the character of the Parliament, and, in my opinion, this Parliament has never recovered from the decisions that it took in the first fortnight of its existence. Its place in history will be defined by those decisions, and all the work that it has done in the intervening period has flowed naturally from them.
When the Statute of Westminster was being debated, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) moved an Amendment, and I think I am entitled to pay him a tribute for having done so, because there is not the slightest doubt that his Amendment would to a very large extent have saved us from the embarrassment in which we now stand. At any rate, it would have safeguarded our position. We all thought that the Statute of Westminster, although
it embodied principles which might well have taken their place in the domestic law of the British Empire as defined at the Imperial Conference in 1928, assumed, when it was cast in legal form, a repulsive guise, and I deeply regret that it was forced through the House in that form. At any rate, however, we had to accept it.
My right hon. and gallant Friend put down an Amendment to provide that the Irish Treaty, if it can be called a treaty, or the Articles of Agreement, if that term be preferred, should be immune from the overriding powers of the Statute of Westminster. It was a very reasonable Amendment, and many people thought that there was a great deal in it. Canada had asked that her fundamental law should be safeguarded in that way, and Australia similarly had desired to withdraw the Act which created her Constitution from the dissolving powers of the Statute of Westmintser. But the Government would have none of it. They resisted. They were the masters, as they are now, of everything that this House does. They assured us that there was no danger of the Statute of Westminster overriding the Treaty. Everybody knows that. That is what made me exert myself as far as I could to bring this matter up on the present occasion.
We had an absolutely definite assurance from the highest legal and political authorities of His Majesty's Government that the Statute of Westminster left the Irish Treaty intact. There might have been a gentleman's agreement, but we contended that the Statute of Westminster could only have the effect of enabling the Irish Parliament, by perfectly legal processes, to undo or destroy every point and principle in the Treaty which had been arrived at between the two nations. I think the House is bound to take note of the fact that we received on that occasion wrong advice, both legal and political, from the high authorities of the Government. We relied upon expert advice in the matter of law; we relied in the main, upon Professor Morgan. I see that Lord Birkenhead at one time described him as one of the greatest constitutional authorities in the British Empire. At any rate, it seems that he has been completely right, because everything that he said and everything that he advised at that time has now been
absolutely, line by line, word by word, syllable by syllable and comma by comma made good by the judgment of the supreme tribunal of British law. You cannot go beyond the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the law, and in this case they can give a decision as to what is the law which, owing to the character of the law, is not one from which you can possibly escape.
The Attorney-General was the legal adviser of the Government. I do not know what Lord Sankey's position was. I do not know whether he advised the Government in one sense, and on subsequent consideration of the matter took a different view as head of the supreme tribunal, but, at any rate, as far as this House is concerned, our affair is with my right hon. and learned Friend. I share the general esteem that is entertained for him in all parts of the House. I would not criticise his legal judgment if he did not stand on foundations which make it quite certain that no words that fall from me can do him any serious or lasting professional injury, but, at any rate, there is no doubt that my right hon. Friend was wrong. All the years that I have been in the House I have always said to myself one thing: "Do not interrupt," and I have never been able to keep to that resolution. Now look at this. This is the Attorney-General. His speech was quite all right from his point of view. He slurred over it and said it was doubtful, but there was a moral obligation, and where the morality ended and the law began no human being could discern. When I was speaking I must have said something that startled him, and he embarked on an interruption, and the interruption reveals quite clearly that his advice was wrong. I had been saying that I was astonished that the Government did not accept the view that we put forward on the Second Reading that the Statute of Westminster overrides the Treaty. "You do not react against that. You do not challenge that. If you were to challenge it, we might easily reach an agreement, because you could vote for our Amendment which would exempt the Irish Treaty from the operation of the Statute of Westminster." The Solicitor-General rose. He was Solicitor-General then. He has been promoted since, very rightly. I do not say that one slip like this should mar a great professional career. You
cannot go eclipsing these great legal luminaries because of accidents like that. He said:
I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has made a statement which I desire to say is not quite in accordance with the facts. The right hon. Gentleman says that no dispute has been raised as to the unqualified power, if this Bill is passed, of the Irish Free State to abrogate or abolish the Treaty. That was certainly challenged in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) and I repeated that challenge in my speech and said that in my humble judgment the Constitution could not be amended, having regard to Article 50 of the Treaty, except in accordance with the Treaty.
There is no question of that being a matter of morality. This is a matter of law. Therefore, I say that my right hon. Friend gave us wrong legal advice. I am sorry to add to the burdens of the Prime Minister by reminding him of his past, but he is welcome to retaliate in so far as he feels inclined upon the extensive target which I present myself. This is what he said:
The Treaty will be just us binding, so I am advised, after the passing of this Statute as before. This also occurs to rue. The Treaty has been scheduled to the Constitution by the Dail, sitting as a constituent assembly, and in it are contained provisions for the amendment of the constitution only within the terms of the scheduled treaty. Thus, the Dail now can only legally modify the constitution in conformity with the Treaty, which is actually embedded in the Irish Free State Constitution. I think this country has every security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1931; cols. 328 and 345, Vol. 260.]
There is not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman believed that and was advised on the highest authority that that was so, but it was all wrong. That is the point that I am here to make. We must look back on these four years. We are entitled to say that altogether incorrect advice was given to Parliament—to this new, young, raw Parliament. The political advice was equally unfortunate. Here is the only point where I really have to quarrel with the Dominions Secretary, because on the subject of law he is never likely to get into a scrape. I defy anyone to catch him out or to point to any part of his carefully considered and shrewd speeches which could possibly be brought to the coherent decision of a judicial body. But still the right hon. Gentleman played his part in this and produced a letter from Mr. Cosgrave,
which stirred the House to an enormous extent, in which Mr. Cosgrave pleaded that it would be very disadvantageous to Irish good will if any such withholding of the Irish Treaty from the operation of the Statute of Westminster were carried in this House. I thought it a very grave mistake for the Government to give way to Mr. Cosgrave in that matter and a very great misfortune for Mr. Cosgrave. As a matter of fact, he would have done much better at the forthcoming election, which I warned the House would very likely result in the return of Mr. de Valera, if he could have had a grievance against the accursed English in this respect without feeling too deeply himself and if at the same time an assurance had not been given to a certain percentage of disloyal elements in Ireland that the new House of Commons did not care very much one way or the other what they did about it. At any rate, that is what the decision of the House was on the advice of the Government.
I am a treaty man. I am one of the signatories to the Irish Treaty. We have the great advantage that we are a self-contained British Parliament, but there were terrible arguments on the other side. At any rate, we signed this Treaty and Irishmen died to make it good and to keep it as a great instrument guiding our future relations. No one can possibly impugn the conduct of Great Britain. But what has happened to the Treaty now? It has been broken and repudiated. My right hon. Friend and the Dominions Secretary unfolded to the House part of that dismal catalogue of repudiation which has marked the last four years—the oath of allegiance, the abolition of the Senate, the last remaining vestige of the action of the Crown and the Governor-General, the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and the new law which makes a British subject a foreigner in the Free State if a proclamation is made under the Act.
The whole of this great transition has speedily transformed the Ireland we settled with as a Dominion within the Empire but with the full rights of the Canadian Dominion into an alien republic. The whole of that great transition has taken place during these four years in which we have had our own troubles to worry about, and no one has concerned himself with it. But there it is. It is not complete. There are a few remaining
steps to be taken but not many. They are going to be taken. The whole of this thing is going to happen. Let me point out that it has been perfectly legal. When you passed that Statute of Westminster and when the Chief Whip assembled for the first time his mighty legions returned at the General Election and rolled them through the Lobby over the 50 who stood out on that occasion, when that happened and a refusal was made by the Government to exempt the Irish Treaty from the operations of the Statute, when that happened you regularised every necessary step, every necessary step that has been taken and may be taken in the future, to destroy and sweep away every vestige of the Treaty made between the two countries.
I have no doubt that we shall hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman speaking from the benches of the Labour party that de Valera has acted only within his legal rights. He may have broken every kind of good faith between nation and nation, and every kind of agreement between man and man, and made it quite clear that the word of Ireland entered into by people who were his colleagues and with whom he worked in bygone days is not of consequence to him, and that he has been the injured party for all time and that the small nations and the good faith of small nations has been impugned. But that is not a matter that affects the issue. He is legally entitled, as I understand, according to highest authority, to take all the steps he has done, and when we were advised he would not be so legally advised, we were voted down when we did not accept that.
I do not hesitate to draw a moral, which the House will quite readily accept from me, that in this great Indian Constitution Bill there are a great many things on which you have been advised by legal authority and of which the House has accepted the opinion which, when you come to look at their working out in practice year after year, will be found equally fallacious and equally injurious to what has occurred in Ireland, and injurious upon a far more immense scale in the history of the world and in the wealth and strength of this country. We are bound to draw attention to the past because it is the guide, and the only guide we have, to the immediate future, and we are bound to say that Ministers
who were giving all these airy assurances about Ireland have repeated them during the whole course of this vast Indian Constitution Bill.
Let this House cast its mind forward to another occasion 15 years hence when another kind of violation takes place in India such as that which we have witnessed without comment taking place within the last four years in Ireland, and we shall see hon. Gentlemen getting up from here or the Liberal benches or wherever it may be and saying, "Of course, no doubt we were wrong in assuming that this safeguard would be maintained or that principle would be preserved. It is true we were wrongly advised. It is a great pity, but, still, it is no use worrying about it now. All that is finished. We must look forward and not backward." And look forward to what? An increasing slide and decline downwards of British rights and authority. That is what I apprehend may well be taking place in regard to this vaster well-being of the Indian masses; something similar to that which we have seen operating on a smaller scale, and in a smaller organism, and much more rapidly in regard to the Irish Free State. I do not contend for a moment that these matters are similar or that there is any similarity between Ireland and India at all, but I say that we warn the House and we claim the justification which is furnished by the Debate to-night as our proof that a long series of undeceptions await us in the Indian sphere.
This Parliament is on its death bed. Whether it expires before Christmas or gasps and rattles through till the New Year, no one can tell, but I think it has a rather tragic and pathetic record. When one thinks of the high mission in which it was born, it is sad to think how much has gone wrong during this period. By no means is the Government responsible for all that has happened, but while you see in this country a great deal of contentment, a very great revival of confidence and prosperity, and a very great acceptance of our general social units, outside this island and in external affairs, just driven on by those very principles we are endeavouring to stigmatise tonight, there has been almost a degeneration of our position and interest, and it will go down, undoubtedly, to history that this House of Commons presided
over a diminution in arms and defensive security of Great Britain of the most serious character, has watched in a supine fashion the vast rearmament of Germany and the virtual transition of the Irish Free State into an independent republic, and has finally set on foot a process in India which, I venture to say, will be as disappointing and vexatious to the House as that which we have brought under close examination to-night. It was all needless. That is the tragedy of it. There was no great pressure and no violent forces that could have led you to these steps. It was all due to being dominated by a particular school of thought which has no relation to the realities of our Imperial life, and still less relation to the facts and forces now at work in Europe. Needless and gratuitous have been these surrenders, and my hope is, by bringing this matter forward and forcing it upon the attention of the House, we may do something to build up in a future Parliament some resisting power which will check this perpetual progress of British degeneration.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Since the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to criticise some suggestions which I made, will he say what is his solution for retaining the Irish Free State in the Empire if she does not want to stay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not think of embarking upon such a topic at this hour.

10.4 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I said what I had to say the other evening with regard to the legal aspect of this situation, and I do not desire to go over all that ground again, but I should like to remind the House that it is quite clear from all the speeches we have heard to-night that this question of whether or not we were, by the passage of the Statute of Westminster, giving Ireland her freedom to alter the Treaty was one that was present to the mind of everybody who followed the Debates upon the Statute of Westminster. I ventured, in the speech which I made on the Second Reading, to point out that that was one of the risks that would be taken by the passage of that Statute, and I and the party I represent certainly took the view that it was a wise and proper thing to
give Ireland that liberty at that time, just as liberty was then being given to South Africa and to other members of the Dominions.
It is hardly right for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to say that the Irish situation has proceeded almost without comment during the life of this Parliament. Time and again the question of the situation of Ireland has been raised from these benches, and time and again we have appealed to the Government as each successive difficulty arose and forced itself upon our attention, to take the long view in dealing with the problem, and not merely act in some vexatious way which prevented a settlement and might lead to more and more exacerbation, and that it was worth settling the smaller matters in any way providing that the major objective of preserving the entity of the Commonwealth, with the Irish Free State as one of the units of that Commonwealth, could be achieved. We have watched these successive difficulties arising one after another and the problem becoming less and less capable of solution, and by no means the smallest of these difficulties, in our view, has been the attitude which the Government have taken up over the Statute of Westminster: the continued assertion by implication and statement that Ireland had not the legal right to change her Constitution, which now it has been held she has.
It very often happens that if you are prepared to acknowledge people's legal rights they will not go to the full extent of demanding them in operation. That is a common experience, as everybody knows who has attempted to settle legal disputes of any kind, and it might well have been that if at the early stage of the land annuities dispute we had adopted the attitude that Ireland was legally empowered to alter her Constitution, we should have got a settlement as regards the arbitral tribunal. The question had already arisen. The right hon. Gentleman says that it had nothing to do with it. It was the background of that dispute. It is true that in the question of the payment of the annuities itself it did not enter, but it was the background of that dispute, and it was already working up at that time to other questions. The Oath, Privy Council appeals and other matters were already working
up as fresh and added difficulties. As long as the assertion was made, and as long as the attitude was taken up that Ireland had not the power to change her Constitution, then we were in a false attitude so far as the law was concerned, and in a false attitude, too, so far as Ireland was concerned. Why that attitude was taken up it is unnecessary to examine. It is unfortunate but it is a fact and it has to be accepted now as one of the facts of past history.
Now that the new legal position has been discovered by the decision that has been made, what alteration is that going to make to the attitude of the Government? We are profoundly disappointed by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made, with its reiteration exactly of what he has been saying before about the maintenance of the sanctity of Treaties. The Treaty was embodied in a British Statute. That Statute, or a subsequent British Statute, gave a Constitution to Ireland, a Constitution accepted by virtue of that British Statute. The moment the Statute of Westminster allowed the Irish Parliament to alter a British Statute, as it did, it gave it complete freedom to alter the Statute which had been passed by this House both as regards the Treaty and the Constitution. That is the truth, and it is no good now saying that you want to adhere to the sanctity of the Treaty, when you have given the other side the means by which they themselves may alter it. You cannot have it both ways. If you give people the legal right to alter the Treaty, you cannot turn round and accuse them of using the legal right which you have given them, especially when at the time that it was given this House was fully warned of the situation by the right hon. Member for Epping and his friends, and it made up its mind to do what it has done. Whether that be a mistake or not, it is the past, and it has been done.
We do not think that any good is now going to come from a refusal to accept the position, as is put forward so clearly in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He says that we will do everything we can to compel Ireland to remain within the Commonwealth.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No. I said that I would be no party to doing anything that would drive her out.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We will see the OFFICIAL REPORT. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant, he had better get what he said put right, because it is not my understanding. I accept absolutely what he says, but I took it down at the time, and I think he said something else. However, I do not want to make any point an that. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, and I am sure that everybody will agree with me, that there is certainly nothing we can do to compel an unwilling Ireland to remain within the Commonwealth. If she wants to go out and decides to go out, nobody, not even the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) would suggest that we should send troops to Ireland to keep her within the British Commonwealth. If we are going to examine the situation realistically, we have to realise that all parties in Ireland to-day are insisting on Irish independence, and that if we want to keep her within the Commonwealth we have to study the problem of whether there is anything that we can do which is going to avert what looks as if it might be the consequence of the situation, and that is that Ireland will go outside the Commonwealth. Surely, there must be some solution that can be found of this problem other than the continued bickering and exacerbation of feeling which will inevitably lead to the end that none of us in this House desires.
If we want to take into account the determination of the Irish people, as represented by their political parties to-day in the Irish Free State, we have to recognise that we must offer something which will accommodate itself to that point of view. I was certainly very much struck by the very courageous speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), which was the only constructive suggestion that has so far been put forward in the course of this debate. If some solution is to be found, may we not turn our minds to the Bill which we have been discussing so much recently in this House, the Bill for the Constitution of India, because in that Constitution, whether one likes it or dislikes it, we have done a very remarkable thing from the constitutional point of view. We have provided that an independent
sovereign State can come within a federation which is, as a federation, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Take the great States of India which can adhere to the Indian Federation. We shall there be witnessing what is an entirely new feature of federation; that is, an independent sovereign, in so far as certain matters are concerned, coming within a federation, a body entering another sovereignty, and both sovereignties being maintained outside the Federation.
If that conception can exist, as we see it can, within the British Commonwealth of Nations—States which were never British, which do not intend to become British, which have maintained their internal sovereignty which was never affected except by the vague, ill-defined and little understood term "paramountcy"—if that can be done, surely there might be the possibility of working out some scheme by which Ireland, having that amount of independence which she demands, willingly agrees to allow to some federal or other body some amount of sovereignty over such matters as the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs mentioned, so that the nexus could be maintained between that free and sovoreign body and the British Commonwealth of Nations, just as it will be maintained between the Indian States and the British Commonwealth. No one would suggest trying, or indeed that it would be effective to try, to force a federation upon Ireland. Once partition has been made we must be just as careful to preserve the rights of the people of Northern Ireland as we must of the people of Southern Ireland.
What we must try to do, in my submission, is to see whether we cannot in some way be of use to these people in assisting them to come towards what eventually must be the hope of everybody inside and outside Ireland, some form of federation in which Ireland will eventually be able to achieve her perfection. If a freely acting Northern Ireland and a freely acting Southern Ireland could come within some such federal body, even for a minimum of matters in the first instance, matters like defence, where there is a common interest acknowledged by all parties—if something of that sort could be freely entered upon, with a free right to withdraw if it should prove to be something
which could not be tolerated in the existing circumstances surely in that way we might assist in solving these unhappy difficulties which divide us from those with whom we are anxious to be friendly across the Irish Sea.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take up the attitude that here we stand fast where we have always stood, that nothing is going to make any difference, that we must stick by everything to which we have always stood. Surely the times are difficult enough without taking up that attitude. Surely the ingenuity and inventiveness of the great lawyers whom the right hon. Gentleman has to assist him are sufficient to put forward some conception by which we can, on the one hand, give to the Irish Free State that independence which every party within the Free State demands, and yet at the same time obtain that great end we all have in view, that the Irish Free State should remain a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

10.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is probably necessary for me to make some observations a little later with reference to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but the House will, of course, realise that my true function is not to encroach upon matters which are more proper, indeed only proper, to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although I make no complaint at all of the hon. and learned Gentleman speaking at the end of the Debate, I cannot help wishing for myself—I say this without any malice at all—that his speech had preceded the contribution to the Debate of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He would have spoken with much more authority and power than I can, and my observations upon the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech must be few, restrained, and indeed cautious.
But before I make those few observations I must say one or two words with reference to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). With great good nature, and exhibiting those qualities which he said were the qualities of this House when it passed the Statute of Westminster, namely, pristine vigour and youthful ardour, he criticised me for what he
called the wrong and mistaken advice I gave to the House four years ago. Now that I am getting older I am not inclined to show the same zest in proving myself always right. I am content to be right sometimes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping with his perennial youth is engaged in building up a reputation for infallibility, and I must not object to his enjoying the pleasure of telling the House that he told the House four years ago what he now tells it.
I am not going to weary the House with an examination of the statements I made on the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster Bill. It would be an impertinence to suppose that the House is the least interested in them. But I must just say this: If the House or any Member of the House chooses to read the Second Reading speech and not the six lines which my right hon. Friend has read, he will find an explicit statement, that I wanted the House to come to its decision on the Bill upon the understanding that the only thing that would prevent the Irish Free State from abrogating the Treaty was the solemn and sacred engagement into which the Free State had entered. That is beyond controversy and I say it very deliberately. I will only refer to one sentence in the report of my speech, in which I said:
Let us face up to the position that what is going to bind the Irish Free State to maintain the Treaty is the sacred and solemn obligations involved in the Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1031; col. 1251, Vol. 259.]
I should give precisely the same advice as I ventured to give to the House and to the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the then Attorney-General, if the circumstances to-day were the same as they then were. The Secretary of State for the Dominions read a letter, during the debate, from Mr. Cosgrave, who said in the most explicit terms that there was an intention from which they would never depart, which need not be safeguarded by the Statute of Westminster, to maintain the Treaty. In those circumstances, I was absolutely justified in making the intervention to which my right hon. Friend has alluded, and in saying that in my humble judgment that constitution could not be amended, having regard to Article 50 of the Treaty, except in accordance with the Treaty. Of course
if the Irish Free State were going to say, "We pay no attention to the Treaty or to any provision in it then everything would be at large and everything would be open and the circumstances in which I gave my advice would be very different. But I shall not detain the House longer with any observations on my own correctness or otherwise which is after all a purely academic and wholly uninteresting topic.
What is really interesting is the nature of the Statute of Westminster and what it has done for the Empire and this brings me to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. My classical education does not enable me to say whether Cassandra was ever able to indulge in the pleasure of saying, "I told you so," but my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping has succeeded in giving to the House the impression—and with his authority he may give those outside the House the impression—that the Statute of Westminster in some way has been a source of misery and weakness to the Empire. Let me remind the House of its origin. By the laborious efforts of a Committee, efforts which were approved by the Imperial Conference of 1930, the Statute was framed, word for word and line for line, as it was subsequently enacted. What has been the result of the Statute upon the constitution of the Empire? My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping with, I was going to say, myopia afflicting him, has fastened his gaze on the Irish Free State.
Let him take the larger vision and look at the Empire. Let him ask himself whether or not, in this year of rejoicing, there has not been an exhibition of a fuller, freer, more harmonious Empire than this world has ever seen. I am bold enough to say, although there may be differences which all of us greatly regret across St. George's Channel, that in every part of the Empire there are proofs of the refreshing fruits of the bold enterprise of the Imperial Conference of 1930, to which this Parliament set its hand and seal in its opening Session. I am perfectly prepared, and I am sure every Member supporting the Government would be prepared to debate with any representative of a Dominion whether the Statute of Westminster was, not merely inevitable, but wholly a blessing to the
Empire in the stage of development which it had then reached. Now my right hon. Friend seeks to draw a lesson which he says must be applied to India. I am not going to enter into the question of the India Bill. My right hon. Friend may prophesy disaster and gloom if it pleases him, but this is not the occasion on which I can join controversy with him.
I come to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. He gave expression to one astounding proposition. With some of the things which he said I most heartily agree, but he actually said that when we gave the Irish Free State, by the Statute of Westminster, complete freedom and power to alter the Treaty we could not complain and we could not accuse them of being guilty when they used the power which we had given them. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that after the Treaty was passed, at any rate up to the time of the Statute of Westminster—and after the Statute of Westminster also—this Parliament had power to alter the Treaty. Up to the Statute of Westminster we were the only Parliament that had the power to alter the Treaty. After the Statute of Westminster, of course, we continued to have the power, as well as the Irish Free State.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman really put his hand to this proposition, that we should not have been guilty of gross ill-faith in altering unilaterally the Treaty between 1922 and 1931, although the whole of the time we possessed the legal power to do it? It is not a proposition for which anybody on any bench in this House would stand, and I take leave to say that if anybody had pretended in those years that this Parliament, being supreme, sovereign, all-powerful, because it had the power, was justified in abrogating the Treaty, the right hon. Gentleman and his party would have been the first to cast a stone at us. What would have been wrong for us could not become right for the Irish Free State. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not repeat that perilous doctrine, that it is always perfectly proper for people to use the power which they possess.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, unwittingly, no doubt, not putting my argument. I said that when we gave, with full knowledge
and realising the situation, the Irish Government a power in 1931 which they had not before, we could not blame them if they used it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and learned Gentleman repeats it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to ride off by saying that in 1931 we gave them this full power, knowing what they were going to do with it, my answer is that we gave it to them on the faith of the letter, largely, that was written by the then Prime Minister, who assured us in the most solemn terms, and perfectly honestly, that nothing would induce him, or his Government, or indeed his country, to depart from the Treaty. I am going to do the hon. and learned Gentleman the credit of thinking that he did not really intend the consequences of the argument that he used. I am not going to set up myself, nor, I am sure, does this House want to set up itself, in judgment upon the Irish Free State, and say that because they have been guilty of a breach of an understanding they are without the pale. I hope that is not the attitude which any of us adopt to a country from which men and women have come who have played such a notable part in the history of this Empire. But even that fact cannot prevent us from recognising that, if only Mr. de Valera, however much he dislikes the Treaty, had recognised that there must be some obligations that are binding other than legal obligations, we should not be in this unhappy state to-day.
Let me come to what was the kernel of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, namely, the suggestion that we really must offer something. He drew an analogy from the position of the Indian States, but let me remind him that the Indian States, though sovereign States, are subject to the suzerainty of the British Crown. Let us not use words which may be imperfectly understood. What I have said is the fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if there was some analogy between an Indian State the native ruler of which, although sovereign in his own State, is under the suzerainty of the British Crown, and the position of the sovereign State which every Dominion in the British Commonwealth is. There is no analogy between them. You really cannot propose a
measure for allaying this quarrel based upon the imperfect analogy of some state of things in a constitution which has not yet been thoroughly established or worked out in operation. Let us come to the kernel of the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) suggested, that Mr. de Valera is insisting upon his right to establish a, republic and that, if that republic is established, he and his country will be willing to be friendly co-operators in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions said, in terms which I think nobody really could have misunderstood, that we should do everything we could to keep the Irish Free State in the Empire, but assuredly he was thinking of the chains of common interest and association which will draw them into closer harmony with us, and not of the use of weapons of force which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have in his mind. But this suggestion that Mr. de Valera can proclaim his republic and can then be within the British Commonwealth of nations and associate with other Dominions as one of the Members freely associated with the British Commonwealth of Nations, is one which really closes the door to any accommodation. This proposal—I am not sure whether it was adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman or only suggested—is really one that shows that Mr. de Valera is irreconcilable as long as he is insisting upon it. To say that he will be a friend if, and only if, he has a republic is vain. Great Britain will not find it difficult to be friendly towards the Irish Free State or with anybody else. I think that, on the whole, Englishmen are a quickly-forgetting, friendly people. We may not have some of the virtues that other Celtic races have, but the Englishman has one great virtue, he has a short memory; and even if the Irish Free State were to go out of the Empire I do not suppose that after the first irritation we should find it difficult to be on friendly terms with them.
What is fatal to the resumption of good relations is for Mr. de Valera to think that Great Britain will ever co-operate with him in making foreigners of Irishmen. We owe them too much. My right
hon. Friend has pointed out the appalling consequences of any severance of the connection that exists. The British Empire is far greater than any of its units—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not understand my right hon. and learned Friend is in any way reducing the force of what the Secretary of State has said.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. I said that I must be cautious and restrained. I do not want in the least to say anything different from or in addition to what my right hon. Friend has said, and perhaps it is better that, in spite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has stated, I should not add to the comments I have already made. I can, at any rate, assure the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is no unwillingness at all on his part to make every accommodation upon the lines which he has stated with Mr. de Valera. If this Debate might possibly bring to Mr. de Valera's notice the continued readiness of my right hon. Friend to meet him and to help him to be one of the members freely associated in the British Commonwealth of Nations in common allegiance to the Crown, the two or three hours we have spent will not have been wasted.

10.40 p.m.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Before this Debate ends I should like to put a question to the Attorney-General which has already been asked by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) but which has not been answered. It is a question of vital importance. It concerns the decision at the time of the passing of the Statute of Westminster with regard to appeals to the Privy Council. I want to know whether the Lord Chancellor of the day was consulted before that decision was arrived at and given to this House, because I was one of those who were misled at the time by the ruling given by the Law Officers of the Crown to our arguments on the Statute of Westminster. I was one of the many Members of this House who were misled, and—although I did not support the Bill—whose fears were allayed by a solemn decision given by the leading Law Officer of the Crown in this House, the Attorney-General. I want to know whether the Lord Chancellor
was consulted before that decision was made, because however much it may be said that it has no influence upon the future constitution of this Empire I say that it has. It is going to react upon the constitution of this Empire for generations to come, because by that one decision we have robbed every citizen of the Empire of a right which he has had since 1865, when the Colonial Laws Validity Act was passed, and that is a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
We may not think that what has been done in a serious thing, but go to any Dominion and ask any citizen of that Dominion what he thinks about the loss of this right, and I think it will be found that it is regarded as a very serious matter. We shall have to consider many things in the future in connection with the position of South African and other native States, and these things are very important. I want to know who was responsible, in addition to the Attorney-General, for the decision and ruling given to this House at that time. Was the Lord Chancellor consulted, and did he give the ruling that was given to the House of Commons?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): rose—

Captain P. MACDONALD: I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. It was asked by the right hon. Member for Epping and we are entitled to know.

Captain MARGESSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to secure that the annual allowances which under paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of section three of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, or under any scheme made under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section twenty-one of that Act or under any scheme framed in pursuance of the Education (Scotland)
(Superannuation) Acts, 1919 to 1925, accrue after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, to persons whose service included service during the period beginning on the first, day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and ending with the said thirtieth day of June shall not be less than 98 per cent. of the annual allowances which would have so accrued if during that period no reduction had been made in their salaries in pursuance of Article 2 of the National Economy (Education) Order, 1931, or Article 1 of the National Economy (Education) (Scotland) Order, 1931, or otherwise on account of the national economic conditions by reason whereof those Orders were made."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

10.44 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I should like to say a word or two to amplify what is contained in the Financial Resolution. The Committee will remember that the pensions of teachers are based on their average salary during the last five years of their teaching service. Towards these pensions teachers pay 5 per cent. of their salaries, their employers, the local education authorities pay 2½ per cent. and the Board of Education pays 2½ per cent. The salaries, and consequently the contributions, were reduced in the autumn of 1931, and teachers who have retired from that time onward have suffered reduced pensions as long as the reduced salaries operated. The effect of the cuts in salaries from 1st October, 1931, to 30th June, 1935, is to reduce by varying sums up to 6½ per cent. the pension receivable by those teachers retiring within a period from the beginning of the cuts to a date up to five years after their removal. This is owing to the fact that the teachers are pensioned on the average salary which they receive during the last five years of their service.
This position has caused very considerable hardship to the teachers, and in order to meet the difficulties the Government stated in June of last year that they would initiate legislation which would provide that contributions were revised and the payment based on the uncut salaries. The position involved very great difficulties in view of the fact that it meant a collection of back contributions. After long negotiation the solution embodied in this Financial Resolution was arrived at, and it has been accepted by representatives of the teachers' organisations
as a final settlement of the outstanding problems. The result is that the Government have produced a scheme by which the superannuation allowances of the teachers will not suffer any reduction exceeding 2 per cent. The cost to the Government, £1,000,000 for England and Wales—Scotland will have its proportionate amount—is approximately equal to what would be the extra net cost of the provision of pensions had there been no salary cuts. I very much hope that the Committee will agree to this proposal.

Mr. ATTLEE: I would just like to say that on this side of the House we entirely agree with it.

Mr. TINKER: Before we pass this Resolution, I would draw attention to the fact that this is one of the effects of the cuts, although it is only very slight. I am glad the teachers have reached agreement with the Government on the question, because it has been very hard on some of them. The solution may be much more helpful than we expected, and if that be so I shall be very glad.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CREDITING OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WATER RESOURCES AND SUPPLIES.

Ordered,
That Mr. Cadogan be discharged from the Joint Committee on Water Resources and Supplies and that Sir Arthur Michael Samuel be added to the Committee."—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.